Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mobile democracy


 * 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 of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:19, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Mobile democracy
Original indeed. I had not gone thru the seemingly immense policies for Wiki entries seeing that I thought that this community would be far more open to original ideas and would want them to be public instead of unanimously slammed...looks like the beginning stages of an internet bureaucracy is at hand :) Thanx for your diligent efforts to supply the web with content that is not original :) no hard feelings...however I would suggest that you proposa edits at 1st and not dive into ERASE! ERASE! this does not fit into conformity! Please consider this reasonable request for policy change.

Is there a section in Wikipedia as to changes or considerations to policies? My email is reconfigure[at]gmail.com

This appears to be an original paper and is certainly not an encyclopedic entry in its current state Kyle J Moore 01:21, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Is it an ad?  A persuasive speech?  A paper?  Who cares? Brian G. Crawford 01:29, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - or is it a copyvio? -- Mithent 01:35, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Reads like advocacy. WP:NOT -- Robocoder 01:35, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as not encyclopedic. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  03:26, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as either copyvio or original research. TheProject 04:47, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Wikipedia is not a soapbox, advocacy, political comment, rhetoric, original research, a high school paper? The origins, motivations and point of this article are all unclear.   (aeropagitica)    (talk)   06:19, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, WP:NOT. --Ter e nce Ong 08:20, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, original research, advocacy, NPOV violation. J I P  | Talk 09:37, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, WP:NOT.--Joe Jklin 10:08, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. DarthVad e r 11:27, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete POV, not encyclopedic, original research, violates WP:NOT. Beno1000 14:53, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as original research and soapboxery. Bucketsofg✐ 14:58, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. -- ReyBrujo 16:36, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Violates numerous Wiki-policies like WP:NOT, WP:OR & is also a copyvio. --Srik e it ( talk ¦  ✉  )  16:42, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Not an encyclopeadic article. Zaxem 17:12, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per all above. Angus McLellan (Talk) 17:57, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete As per my nomination and above comments. Kyle J Moore 19:25, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as above. ProhibitOnions 21:09, 5 May 2006 (UTC)


 * 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.