Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Landmark Education jargon: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
→[[Landmark Education jargon]]: delete |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 17: | Line 17: | ||
*'''Delete''' - The article seems quite garbled. Perhaps '''move to userspace''' and repost as an article after it's been made more coherent and encyclopedia-worthy? --[[User:AgentCDE|AgentCDE]] 05:07, 16 April 2007 (UTC) |
*'''Delete''' - The article seems quite garbled. Perhaps '''move to userspace''' and repost as an article after it's been made more coherent and encyclopedia-worthy? --[[User:AgentCDE|AgentCDE]] 05:07, 16 April 2007 (UTC) |
||
*'''Delete''' - Much of the article's content already exists in expanded form in [[Landmark Education]]. The subject matter doesn't warrant a whole separate article. =[[User:Axlq|Axlq]] 05:29, 16 April 2007 (UTC) |
*'''Delete''' - Much of the article's content already exists in expanded form in [[Landmark Education]]. The subject matter doesn't warrant a whole separate article. =[[User:Axlq|Axlq]] 05:29, 16 April 2007 (UTC) |
||
*'''Delete''' - This is overflow from the main Landmark Education article. [[User:Sm1969|Sm1969]] 06:28, 16 April 2007 (UTC) |
|||
Revision as of 06:28, 16 April 2007
- Landmark Education jargon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
Please see the following entry from the Landmark Education site.
This is the last change before the recent additions by Smee. It is made by Jossi who is an admin: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Landmark_Education_jargon&oldid=93960772
This content was decided buy consensus on the Landmark Education page. None of the citations are particularly notable or say anything. The latest changes are an attempt by an editor to re-insert mateiral that was decided to be non-notable on the main page. Alex Jackl 21:14, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
- Formatted, added to today's debate log. – Luna Santin (talk) 21:36, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete The material is not coherent. The second of its two terms is not a definition, but a use of the term in a sentence.DGG 01:20, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete This is an incoherent mess. It should be deleted. Triplejumper 03:32, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete - The article seems quite garbled. Perhaps move to userspace and repost as an article after it's been made more coherent and encyclopedia-worthy? --AgentCDE 05:07, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete - Much of the article's content already exists in expanded form in Landmark Education. The subject matter doesn't warrant a whole separate article. =Axlq 05:29, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete - This is overflow from the main Landmark Education article. Sm1969 06:28, 16 April 2007 (UTC)