Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/History of commitment ordering: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
I JethroBT (talk | contribs) →History of commitment ordering: delete |
→History of commitment ordering: delete |
||
Line 7:
:<small class="delsort-notice">Note: This debate has been included in the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Software|list of Software-related deletion discussions]]. <!--Template:Deletion sorting--></small> <small>—[[User:Tom Morris|Tom Morris]] ([[User talk:Tom Morris|talk]]) 22:48, 9 November 2011 (UTC)</small>
*'''Delete''' Article is almost entirely written by a single user who appears to be the only editor with working knowledge of the subject. While also being written like an essay, it is also written in such prolific technical jargon that I don't even know how to begin cleaning up the article myself. In-line references are also missing, which means that none of the statements in the article can be attributed to a particular source. If the main editor of the article, [[User:Comps|Comps]] would like to weigh in here and respond to the concerns expressed here, that would be appreciated. [[User:I Jethrobot|<font color="green" face="Corbel"><b>I, Jethrobot</b></font>]][[User talk:I Jethrobot| <sup>drop me a line</sup>]] <small>(note: not a [[WP:BOT|bot]]!)</small> 00:04, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' - The article, in its current state, is so confusingly written, so poorly contextualised, and so arcanely referenced that I cannot see how it can possibly be usefully edited, improved, expanded or trimmed by other editors. In addition, much or all of the article appears to be original research (in several places, after citing a source, the author of the article then argues with the source or points out its errors). - [[User:DustFormsWords|DustFormsWords]] ([[User talk:DustFormsWords|talk]]) 04:35, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
| |||