Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Millennium Villages Project
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Keep. --Fang Aili talk 16:05, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Millennium Villages Project (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
Disputed speedy, reposted. Originally speedy deleted as 'blatant advertising'. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry 20:07, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep Its a really crappy article, but the organisation itself is part of the UN Millenium Project and Columbia University effort to end poverty in Africa using an multi pronged strategy. The article needs to be extensively improved, but defo keep. 20:40, 1 November 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scope creep (talk • contribs)
- Keep For all the same reasons as Scope creep including crappy writing dig. Hansonc 21:02, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Scope creep, needs significant cleanup. Subdolous 21:05, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Move to original poster's namespace for re-write. It still reads like a promotional piece. -- Emana 21:38, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete aside from the crappy wording, the article does not assert its subject's notability, and I'm not inclined to believe it has any. Bobby1011 06:49, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- What about the fact that it's a UN/Columbia University joint project, doesn't that make it notable in your mind? By the way I've added links to the official websites for someone to base a cleanup on. Millennium_Villages_Project#External_Links Hansonc 15:38, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Notability is not inherited. That is to say that the parent organisations are not important here. The subject must stand on its own two feet. I don't think it can. Bobby1011 16:35, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Since searching for Wikipedia rules is like searching for a needle in a haystack is there a rule that states "your lack of knowledge about a topic does not mean it's non-notable"?... If there is I would like to cite that here... if not, well there should be. -Hansonc 19:53, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Maybe you're looking for WP:IDONTKNOWIT. In any case it's not up to me or any other reader to know anything about this project. It's the responsibility of the editor who created it to show that they have actually done the work to verify that what they read on the internet about this organisation is true. That means real sources. Third party ones. That independently assert the notability of the articles subject. At the moment the article is not convincing me that it is anything more than another group/think tank/lobby(the articles actually describes it as an "approach") that has not, as of yet, amounted to anything. If you wish to assert future notability then there is a place and time for that: the future, because wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Bobby1011 17:29, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I was actually kidding about the lack of knowledge rule but it's nice to see that it exists :-) This brings me to my major problem with Wikipedia'a AfD process. It's easier to get valid articles such as this deleted than it is to save them. This is obviously a real program, backed by the UN and Columbia University which is worthy of a better Wikipedia article than it has but because people find it easier to just delete articles than to fix them, here we are arguing about if it should be in Wikipedia or not. -Hansonc 23:15, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment My problem with what you seem to be saying is that the program is notable because its two parent organisations are. Was it featured in any mainstream news? Has it accomplished any notable goals for which there are reliable third party sources? If yes, then list them as references. Bobby1011 01:57, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I was actually kidding about the lack of knowledge rule but it's nice to see that it exists :-) This brings me to my major problem with Wikipedia'a AfD process. It's easier to get valid articles such as this deleted than it is to save them. This is obviously a real program, backed by the UN and Columbia University which is worthy of a better Wikipedia article than it has but because people find it easier to just delete articles than to fix them, here we are arguing about if it should be in Wikipedia or not. -Hansonc 23:15, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Maybe you're looking for WP:IDONTKNOWIT. In any case it's not up to me or any other reader to know anything about this project. It's the responsibility of the editor who created it to show that they have actually done the work to verify that what they read on the internet about this organisation is true. That means real sources. Third party ones. That independently assert the notability of the articles subject. At the moment the article is not convincing me that it is anything more than another group/think tank/lobby(the articles actually describes it as an "approach") that has not, as of yet, amounted to anything. If you wish to assert future notability then there is a place and time for that: the future, because wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Bobby1011 17:29, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Since searching for Wikipedia rules is like searching for a needle in a haystack is there a rule that states "your lack of knowledge about a topic does not mean it's non-notable"?... If there is I would like to cite that here... if not, well there should be. -Hansonc 19:53, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- We would like to obtain some knowledge, if you can find some references that document it other than the projects own website. DGG (talk) 23:44, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.