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; reevaluate if new article is written. —Quarl(talk) 2007-03-02 08:44Z
No outside links, unsalvagably POV, probably not notable. --Hojimachongtalkcon 20:43, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 12:45, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, for now. We should let everybody have more than three days to work on an Article before screaming delete, but I am afraid that unless the article improves greatly it will soon be a goner. Besides, and this especially for new editors: you can write an article in your sandbox and not release it before you are confident that it meets at least WP:VAlf photoman 17:06, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Quarl(talk) 04:42, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speed delete cut-n-paste copyvio from [1]. No prejudice against recreation as an original text. Wile E. Heresiarch 05:52, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't see signs that this foundation is terribly active or notable; looks like it sponsors a conference or two, has some archives. It is basically a private foundation (I bet "mandated by the government" simply means that when they filed the non-profit papers, they gave the government the purpose listed.) Out. --Brianyoumans 06:29, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
weak delete In this case I think the foundation might well be N, bu tthe existing article/essay/PR is hopeless, and a proper article should be written instead. DGG 02:45, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, article has not improved in the past 7 days so I am going to suppose that bothing is going to happen to it. In the present form : cut and paste, no references, no sources I think we dont have another choice. No prejudice against the theme itself. Alf photoman 14:50, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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.