Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Al Gore/archive1
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was not promoted 16:08, 30 July 2007.
Al Gore is important because he is the 1. man who try to kill global warming seriously.--Tamás Kádár 08:42, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose lack of attribution in several places. Perspicacite 08:48, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But we have to work a little bit on the page.--Tamás Kádár 09:20, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong oppose, some statements have been unsourced since February this year. Being "the 1. man who try to kill global warming seriously" does not make this person's Wikipedia article become at Featured Status. Dalejenkins 13:46, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose - per above. Global warming is a fraud anyway. Weatherman90 15:05, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Oppose This article reads more like a political advertisement than an encyclopedia article. It is full of "spin" and bias. For example, the article states that Gore dropped out of law school because he wanted to run for his recently-vacated, home congressional seat. Wrong. Gore flunked out of law school.--Hokeman 19:53, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose -This article gives a wide-eyed feeling and many things are unsourced. The reason given for it's nomination is a horrible one. Even though it's a biogrpahy article of a President, it doesn't match the quality standards. Even Gwen Stefani is better than this President's article! Luxurious.gaurav 10:46, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, sorry. I meant Vice president, but because of boredom i kept on typing President. Luxurious.gaurav 09:11, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose on the grounds that there are controversial assertions that are uncited, and there is a lack of criticism of Gore present. I have to say however, that several of the votes on this seem to be "I don't like it" votes. Trotting out "global warming is a fraud anyway" certainly doesn't make your opinion on the article seem fair and objective. VanTucky (talk) 21:06, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- In my case, i don't know anything about Gore, as i am an Indian (though i came to know something after reading the article). So there is no question of me opposing because of any personal reasons. Luxurious.gaurav 09:17, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Same here, I'm British. Dalejenkins | The Apprentice (UK)'s FA plea-please have your say! 18:10, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- In my case, i don't know anything about Gore, as i am an Indian (though i came to know something after reading the article). So there is no question of me opposing because of any personal reasons. Luxurious.gaurav 09:17, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Suggest that you add link to transcript of Al Gore's November 27, 2000 speech "a vote is a human voice": http://archives.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/11/27/gore.transcript/index.html. Took me an hour and a half to find it today and it's important enough to be able to refer to and retrieve. "Two hundred years from now, when future Americans study this presidential election, let them learn that Americans did everything they could to ensure that all citizens who voted had their votes counted. Let them learn that democracy was ultimately placed ahead of partisan politics in resolving a contested election. Let them learn that we were indeed a country of laws." Thatvisionthing 22:44, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose, nominated for the wrong reasons. An article should be nominated for how well written it is(which this article isn't), not soley how important somebody is. Using the logic of this nomination, everyone here should instantly become a featured article, which shows why you shouldn't nominate articles such as this one. --RandomOrca2 02:55, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Not liking the reason an article is nominated for is not a valid objection. Raul654 15:41, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Let me rephrase. I'm saying that the article isn't featured article material. If it was somebody important and the article was written and sourced well, then I would go support it. This isn't the case here. --RandomOrca2 16:40, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Not liking the reason an article is nominated for is not a valid objection. Raul654 15:41, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.