Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Micronation/archive1
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the debate was not featured. — Davidpdx 01:19, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
- Nominate Great article! Aint 23:05, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose, no citations at all. —Nightstallion (?) 19:49, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose, This article suffers from continued abuse from unidentified IP's adding nonsense. Also the article length is too long. Davidpdx 14:53, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
- Nominate, Davidpdx, if you actually understood the article, then you would not be saying that. Aint 19:12, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
- Comment First of all, to the person who said I don't understand it, your wrong. Second, there is quite a bit of vandalism and abuse going on, which I do know something about since I was involved in stopping some of it. Third, it seems strange that you think you can vote twice. Maybe because your 10 years old and can't follow the rules. By the way, "ain't" isn't proper English.Davidpdx 06:30, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
- Comment: Besides, this isn't even linked to from Wikipedia:Featured article candidates (maybe it was at some point?). Whatever. I hereby close this nomination, as it won't succeed, either way. —Nightstallion (?) 09:52, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
- Reopen While this page does suffer from a lot of Vandalism, it still has lots of great content and people should know about this phenomenon. (unsigned by Kitia)
- Comment I believe your wrong Kitia, this should have remained closed. It has been almost three weeks with very few comments. Also, the person that listed this did not properly link it to the Featured Candidate Page (as mentioned by Nightstallon). This should be closed and after waiting awhile renominated properly. Davidpdx 20:02, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
- Comment: What the hell, I've listed it at WP:FAC properly. It'll likely fail, anyway, unless the nominator is actually willing to *work* on it, but meh, might as well let her or him get a chance. —Nightstallion (?) 20:17, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
- I tend to agree with you, those who nominated need to look at the suggestions being made, rather then attacking those who are making them. In the end, if the issues are resolved, it will make it a better article. Davidpdx 00:48, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
- Lack of refs: oppose Computerjoe's talk 20:58, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Lack of Referances? Are You Kidding? Kitia 21:52, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
- Mild oppose. The article itself does contain lots of good info. Perhaps some grouping of the history sections would make it even better. Some more illustrations may also improve it further. And I left some straightforward recommendations for improvement towards compliance with Wikipedia standards on the talk page. When these compliance issues are taken of, I'll gladly support it. Wim van Dorst (Talk) 22:01, 1 July 2006 (UTC).
- Comment I knew someone would support my decision of reopening the debate!Kitia 22:43, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
- That's fine, but the nomination process shouldn't be a endless ordeal. My thought is now that it is listed properly it needs to be decided in a week or so no matter what the outcome is. Davidpdx 00:48, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
- Neutral - no inline referencing, and tone is slightly odd in places. Otherwise looking good. -- Alfakim -- talk 16:53, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
- Comment What About the Erwin Strauss book? Kitia 17:34, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose Agree with Nightstallion. Citations are needed for a subject like this to easily ensure the material is accurate. Cedars 01:09, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.