 | This article was nominated for deletion on 8 May 2009. The result of the discussion was keep. |
 | This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. |
What's the deal with entries for Julian A Cooney & Chris VanGlahn on the page for Greatness?
Sjagadish ( talk) 13:49, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
The works of Nietzsche seem relevant to this article, But I am hesitant to add anything since I am unsure where to put it. Mystery mustache man ( talk) 13:10, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
 | This page has been
transwikied to
Wiktionary. The article has content that is useful at Wiktionary. Therefore the article can be found at either here or here ( logs 1 logs 2.) Note: This means that the article has been copied to the Wiktionary Transwiki namespace for evaluation and formatting. It does not mean that the article is in the Wiktionary main namespace, or that it has been removed from Wikipedia's. Furthermore, the Wiktionarians might delete the article from Wiktionary if they do not find it to be appropriate for the Wiktionary. Removing this tag will usually trigger CopyToWiktionaryBot to re-transwiki the entry. This article should have been removed from Category:Copy to Wiktionary and should not be re-added there. |
-- CopyToWiktionaryBot 03:22, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
There's little that can go here without violating WP:NPOV. As the article says, "greatness" is too subjective. Merely being the biggest, first, etc., doesn't necessarily denote greatness; mere superlatives won't cut it. Even being a wonder doesn't automatically mean "great", IMHO. References to lists by non-Wikpedians that attept to subjectively categorize greatness may be suitable to catalog here. Any list by a Wikipedian by it's very nature must violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy. -- Kbh3rd talk 03:20, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
I think someone meant "Jackie Chan," not "Jonny Chan." Oh, well. Basketball one ten 01:52, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
I am the 2409:4051:4EB7:A407:0:0:740B:580F ( talk) 04:23, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
|
| This article was nominated for deletion on 8 May 2009. The result of the discussion was keep. |
| This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. |
What's the deal with entries for Julian A Cooney & Chris VanGlahn on the page for Greatness?
Sjagadish ( talk) 13:49, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
The works of Nietzsche seem relevant to this article, But I am hesitant to add anything since I am unsure where to put it. Mystery mustache man ( talk) 13:10, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
|
| This page has been
transwikied to
Wiktionary. The article has content that is useful at Wiktionary. Therefore the article can be found at either here or here ( logs 1 logs 2.) Note: This means that the article has been copied to the Wiktionary Transwiki namespace for evaluation and formatting. It does not mean that the article is in the Wiktionary main namespace, or that it has been removed from Wikipedia's. Furthermore, the Wiktionarians might delete the article from Wiktionary if they do not find it to be appropriate for the Wiktionary. Removing this tag will usually trigger CopyToWiktionaryBot to re-transwiki the entry. This article should have been removed from Category:Copy to Wiktionary and should not be re-added there. |
-- CopyToWiktionaryBot 03:22, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
There's little that can go here without violating WP:NPOV. As the article says, "greatness" is too subjective. Merely being the biggest, first, etc., doesn't necessarily denote greatness; mere superlatives won't cut it. Even being a wonder doesn't automatically mean "great", IMHO. References to lists by non-Wikpedians that attept to subjectively categorize greatness may be suitable to catalog here. Any list by a Wikipedian by it's very nature must violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy. -- Kbh3rd talk 03:20, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
I think someone meant "Jackie Chan," not "Jonny Chan." Oh, well. Basketball one ten 01:52, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
I am the 2409:4051:4EB7:A407:0:0:740B:580F ( talk) 04:23, 3 May 2024 (UTC)