![]() | This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
User:Hrafn, you've turned this article into a redirect, referring to WP:FORK without any further explanation. Since WP:FORK is about copies of Wikipedia, you've probably meant Wikipedia:Content forking. In my opinion, first, it is not applicable here: quoting it, Summary style articles, with sub-articles giving greater detail, are not POV forking, provided that all the sub-articles, and the summary, conform to Neutral Point of View. Essentially, it is generally acceptable to have different levels of detail of a subject on different pages, provided that each provides a balanced view of the subject matter. Second, if one considers it necessary to merge those pages, I haven't seen any signs of using the procedures suggested by WP:Merging. Fuseau ( talk) 01:27, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources.
— WP:PSTS
If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article or stand-alone list.
— WP:N
If no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it.
— WP:V
No secondary/independent/third-party sources = no article. Hrafn Talk Stalk( P) 12:12, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
Original sources:
New sources:
Hrafn Talk Stalk( P) 06:21, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
Should this article be restored, it would be subject to immediate merger, per WP:MERGE#Rationales #2 (Overlap) #3 (Text) & #4 (Context). I would therefore suggest that you add any appropriate/reliably-sourced material to Creation and evolution in public education#Council of Europe's resolution 1580. Hrafn Talk Stalk( P) 17:24, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
Even if you do want an independent article on this topic (and I still way off being convinced that it merits one), the best way to demonstrate the need for one is to build up sufficient secondary-sourced material at Creation and evolution in public education#Council of Europe's resolution 1580, that an argument can be made for its being split off. Hrafn Talk Stalk( P) 11:37, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
![]() | This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
User:Hrafn, you've turned this article into a redirect, referring to WP:FORK without any further explanation. Since WP:FORK is about copies of Wikipedia, you've probably meant Wikipedia:Content forking. In my opinion, first, it is not applicable here: quoting it, Summary style articles, with sub-articles giving greater detail, are not POV forking, provided that all the sub-articles, and the summary, conform to Neutral Point of View. Essentially, it is generally acceptable to have different levels of detail of a subject on different pages, provided that each provides a balanced view of the subject matter. Second, if one considers it necessary to merge those pages, I haven't seen any signs of using the procedures suggested by WP:Merging. Fuseau ( talk) 01:27, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources.
— WP:PSTS
If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article or stand-alone list.
— WP:N
If no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it.
— WP:V
No secondary/independent/third-party sources = no article. Hrafn Talk Stalk( P) 12:12, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
Original sources:
New sources:
Hrafn Talk Stalk( P) 06:21, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
Should this article be restored, it would be subject to immediate merger, per WP:MERGE#Rationales #2 (Overlap) #3 (Text) & #4 (Context). I would therefore suggest that you add any appropriate/reliably-sourced material to Creation and evolution in public education#Council of Europe's resolution 1580. Hrafn Talk Stalk( P) 17:24, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
Even if you do want an independent article on this topic (and I still way off being convinced that it merits one), the best way to demonstrate the need for one is to build up sufficient secondary-sourced material at Creation and evolution in public education#Council of Europe's resolution 1580, that an argument can be made for its being split off. Hrafn Talk Stalk( P) 11:37, 9 December 2011 (UTC)