Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Human rainbow

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - kept

Report of non-notable record-breaking event wrapped in the worst sort of corporate nothingspeak ("World's Largest Human Rainbow is a symbolic affirmation of the constitutive strength of PUP as the biggest contributor to the nation's human capital stock and as an ardent producer of transcendent values"). --Ianb 07:59, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• • Comment: Article has now been rewritten (thanks!) and the grounds for deletion no longer apply. --Ianb 07:25, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. Thanks for addressing all my complaints. I like the new page! ---Rednblu 18:40, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. I'm willing to change my vote if you structure what you have into a page something like this page. But the current page is advertisement. Non-notable, at least the author gave insufficient reason to think the subject is notable. Not encyclopedic; not enough description of the surrounding social, politicial, or economic environment to be useful. Just political slogans. ---Rednblu 08:35, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Neutral. Something doesn't seem consistent between the title and what the article is about. For me, human rainbow seems to be an interesting description of the world, more than of a national university, whatever its human qualities that seem to make it deserve its own article. Hey, guys and girls, here we could have two articles for the price of one ;-)) --Pgreenfinch 08:36, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC) Keep now that it was rewritten --Pgreenfinch 19:35, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Comment: I think the original poster copied and pasted the whole message from the acting president of the PUP. That's why it's inconsistent between the title and the article... =) --Andylkl 06:41, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Contains no encyclopedic information at present. Andrewa 09:32, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Everyking 11:58, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Lots of POV but nothing that makes sense. Reminds me of the release of the Euro symbol with claims that its design represented European values and aspirations. Jallan 15:06, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-encyclopedic. — Gwalla | Talk 19:46, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Now it's actually about something. Good rewrite. — Gwalla | Talk 16:56, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Crimmer 06:31, Sep 29, 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. I've rewritten the article already. =) --Andylkl 07:13, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Comment: Since the grounds for deletion are no longer applied, I'll be taking out the VfD tags, right? --Andylkl 08:50, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • Comment: Seems ok to me. Thue | talk 21:07, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. Looks great after Andylkl's rewrite.

--Eurleif 08:16, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

• Keep. Rewrite has produced a modest and appropriate article. Denni☯ 16:43, 2004 Oct 3 (UTC)
• Keep rewritten article. Thue | talk 21:07, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Keep rewrite. Silly but valid subject, decent little article. -- Cyrius|✎ 00:03, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.