Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Prequalified


 * 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 was delete. Consensus is clear, closing before it becomes a cesspit. Just zis Guy you know? 22:30, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Prequalified
Unverified, POV, and unsourced, it's a dictionary term (and actually in the past tense and not the proper "Prequalification"), and is yet another soapbox for WikiWoo to mouth off against the way Regional Municipalities in Ontario work. It's an attempt to recreate "Invited public tenders" which was AfDed (the "invited" is synonymous with "prequalified"), and which was already recreated and AfDed again as "Public tendering". └ O z L a w y e r  / talk  ┐ 17:10, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
 * This nomination now also includes an identical article at Prequalification. JChap2007 05:02, 21 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete absurd POV faux dicdef. Just zis Guy you know? 17:14, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom and above. --Daniel Olsen 17:23, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom and above. I'm not crazy about his Public Procurement article either. wikipediatrix 17:53, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
 * KEEP I hate the way censorship by corrdinated vandalism is applied here. I can't understand the motives of people claiming to be editors with the clear manifested purpose of keeping material off of publication. Too many people are eating off the system of systemic corruption of public systems which is most blaitant in the Corrupt Regional Government Structure of Ontario Canada. If you guys have a legitimate interest in improving Wiki you might what to edit wording than to delete elements of knowledge and information. Wiki is a colaborative project with many editors suposedly ADDING to the content. You guys going around taking stuff off is absurd faux editing and censoring.--Wiki The Humble Woo 17:58, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per JzG. "Absurd POV faux dicdef" says it pretty well. WW, get a blog. Wikipedia is still not a soapbox. Fan-1967 18:30, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
 * comment All this talk of soapbox by people who are making wiki their soapbox. All information is valued and an improvement to Wiki. All censorship is BAD. You don't like the wording CHANGE IT DON'T DELETE IT - Coordinated Vandalims to delete content is not the proper way to edit content. Faux editing to censor information makes for a bad source of half truths and disinformation--Wiki The Humble Woo 19:43, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
 * You know, I can't recall a single instance of Wikipedians and particularly admins being accused of censorship by anyone other than a tendentious editor. Just zis Guy you know? 20:59, 20 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete - uncited, unverifiable, POV-laden article that, at its eventualist ideal, might end up defining a word. Destined to remain a soapbox platform if not deleted. --Gary Will 20:10, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom, Garywill and JzG. Note to WW: Please don't accuse other users of being vandals and try to remain civil.  Srose   (talk)  20:14, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Opinion dressed up as a dicdef. No reliable sources are provided. Articles need to contain information; if you want to do an article that contains/is about ranting, go here. JChap2007 20:40, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Put your POV somewhere else, please. Baseball,Baby!   balls  •  strikes  20:45, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
 * comment So why don't you each make an edit to the piece and put your efforts into that? Wiki needs content not deletions. Or maybe you all feel Wiki has everything in it that it should ever have. Here's an idea, why not put your knowledge of what a prequalification is and what prequalified means. I bet a lot of Wiki readers have never heard of the term..--Wiki The Humble Woo 21:31, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment - Wikipedia needs encyclopedic content, not articles that POV-push, are unsourced and are soapbox-esque. Since you are the one who wants this article to stay, the burden rests on you to improve it and convince others that it should stay.  Srose   (talk)  21:36, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. CaliEd 21:56, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as per above comments. WikiWoo, please realize that everyone must follow the neutral point of view policy here. This is not NPOV. Tony Fox (arf!) 02:36, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * commentLooks like all the censors are out en mass on this one. What's important to me is that factual and intersting information gets published regardless how bad it makes people look. An encyclopedia is worthless if it only publishes positive rose coloured information. The world is a ying/yang and the good and evils need to be equaly documented and recorded as factual information. All this POV pushing serves no good purpose.--Wiki The Humble Woo 02:47, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * You have an issue with government officials that you continue to try and contest in entries here. Your point of view is obvious. If you have PUBLISHED SOURCES to put behind your claims, then dandy. If you do NOT have published sources, then you are pushing original research, and you are failing to follow policy, and your articles, edits, etc. will continue to be adjusted by people who are adhering to policy. This definition of prequalification is very much a negative approach, and the title is poor; if you're going to do a serious article about this, it should be under 'prequalification,' it should have actual reliable sources linked into the article, it should be written in the proper style[[ and should not be an immediately negative article. Please give that some consideration. [[User:Tony Fox|Tony Fox (arf!) 04:21, 21 August 2006 (UTC)


 * comment Thanks for the excelent advice and constructive input. But I thought Wiki was a collaborative project where everyone with information and ability to contribute would participate in writting up interesting articles to expand the knowledge of readers of the world. Judging from all the interest in this topic "Prequalification" It obviously merits a great article with plenty of details and cites and all. I started it off based on experience and knowledge. I added the expand tag to invite editors with interest in expanding knowledge to pitch in and edit it. Do you all expect me to rewrite Wiki all by myself? If there was any integrity in these peoples concern with the article one would expect efforts to reword, cite and expand...and not the Spanish Inquisition looking to burn this witch at the stake for fear it might result in an informative article on an important subject of great pubic interest.--Wiki The Humble Woo 04:38, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment What we expect, WikiWoo, is that content be properly sourced - especially content that presents a clear point of view. We expect that editors here will have one agenda: the improvement of Wikipedia. Anything less is harmful to the project. --AbsolutDan (talk) 12:57, 21 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Note WikiWoo has just created an identical copy of the article at Prequalification. Since the content is the same, it should be bundled with this AFD. Fan-1967 04:50, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * And I just tagged it. JChap2007 05:02, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * delete per nom -Ladybirdintheuk 08:22, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. --AbsolutDan (talk) 12:58, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete POV, OR, and WP:NOT a soapbox. jgp TC 18:27, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete the current incarnation of this article. It would be very hard to build a good article from such a one-sided starting point. Keeping this article does a disservice to Wikipedia. Deletion should be done with no prejudice against another editor covering this topic from a neutral and well-sourced perspective in the future. Gwernol 21:14, 21 August 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.