Jump to content

Wikipedia:Version 0.5 FA Review/Archived nominations

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Articles that fail on importance

Too low importance Rlevse 15:17, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Too low importance Jaranda wat's sup 20:07, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Too low importance Jaranda wat's sup 02:02, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Too low importance Jaranda wat's sup 02:02, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Too low importance Jaranda wat's sup 02:20, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure we should go down to the high school/grade school level on education, but if we do, these would be a good choice. Not voting either way right now, seeking consensus.Rlevse 15:26, 20 July 2006 (UTC) PS noticed Hopkins School was already selected and sinc it's got a unique and old history, I suggest we leave that one as a selectee.Rlevse 22:45, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
*Partialy agree Plano and Caufield I agree with, while Stuyvesant is very major Jaranda wat's sup 20:01, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Stuyvesant is just a high school. We shouldn't include high schools. Anyway why this one? Because its american? What about high schools in China? They're probably bigger. What about high schools in England? You should think in global. I mean articles that will be included in Version 0.5 must represent the world not the USA. NCurse work 07:48, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Because it represents the magnet program and that separates it from the other non-college schools. There are no FAs on non-college level schools other than American ones.Rlevse 13:18, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
*Partialy agree as I'm going to aggre with Jaranda, only leave out Plano and Caufield. Rlevse 02:24, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Plano and Caufield Rejected, and I would leave Stuyvesant for now Jaranda wat's sup 22:30, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I feel we don't need this article when the main Mich. State Univ. article was already selected.Rlevse 21:17, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
3 music articles, too low importance Jaranda wat's sup 20:27, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Too low importance Jaranda wat's sup 03:19, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Too low importance Jaranda wat's sup 06:10, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Too low importance, article is half list and poorly ref as well Jaranda wat's sup 23:57, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree Zzzzz 00:10, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Refer to WP:FAR. Titoxd(?!?) 00:26, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Be aware that this article is dearly loved by some of the old-guard Wikipedians precisely because of its obscurity ("Only on Wikipedia would you find this!") I agree it does not belong in V0.5. Walkerma 01:15, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Too vauge, low importance Jaranda wat's sup 01:52, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Jaranda's comments. Also, to include that article alone without including Prostitution in the United States etc. seems like a violation of NPOV bordering on racism. Walkerma 02:25, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with Jaranda's comments, but I agree with Walkerma's points. Agree, at least for now. Titoxd(?!?) 03:34, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's overly paranoid for us to worry about things like this. If Prostitution in the People's Republic of China is the only prostitution FA now, so be it. Rlevse 03:36, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
With the PRC's block of Wikipedia, and Baidu Baike's treatment (which some characterize as hostile), it is a horribly bad idea, and it can cost us the Foundation's support. Titoxd(?!?) 03:38, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Too low importance Jaranda wat's sup 22:17, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree Zzzzz 00:09, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disagree Quite influential on the medium in its day. Well known enough IMHO that it should not be classed as obscure. Walkerma 01:15, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Acually the article has some serious problems, and I nominated it for WP:FAR. Jaranda wat's sup 05:11, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Quality concerns archived Jaranda wat's sup 05:59, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Too low importance, removed from the Essential CVG list, quality concerns (Too listy, few references). Nifboy 05:36, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Too low importance, removed from the Essential CVG list, minor quality concerns (only 3 secondary sources). Nifboy 05:36, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • George Moore (novelist) - as per intro, "Moore's work remains somewhat outside the mainstream of both Irish and British literature; he founded no school or movement and has had few, if any, followers". Zzzzz 00:09, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No records, no damage, no fatalities. Very insignificant as hurricanes go. Runningonbrains 18:36, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A look at is FAC shows its non-notability. Agree. Titoxd(?!?) 18:39, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Food and drink[edit]

Business, economics, and finance[edit]

I nominate these: NCurse work 19:45, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Royalty, nobility, and heraldry[edit]

Geography[edit]

  • Agree No longer a featured article. A historic storm, no doubt, but should not be included until it is improved a bit. Runningonbrains 02:49, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree Maurreen 18:41, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dogpatch USA A defunct theme park that never really took off - I think we should only include it if we have a bunch of successful ones. Walkerma 04:29, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, but the main article has a rather extensive section summarizing this article's content. It is superfluous. -Runningonbrains 06:37, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. Gimmetrow 15:45, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, but the main article has a section summarizing this article's content. While the section is not as in-depth as the article, it is covered sufficiently to the curious reader. -Runningonbrains 06:37, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. Gimmetrow 15:45, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Kalimpong Town of 40,000 in northern India, I don't think it's notable enough. Walkerma 04:29, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oakland Cemetery Largest and oldest cemetery in Atlanta, but I don't think that warrants its inclusion. Walkerma 04:29, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Physics and Astronomy[edit]

Kreutz Sungrazers

Religion[edit]

Engineering and Technology[edit]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Version_0.5_FA_Review/Archived_nominations&oldid=174485137"