If you have any concern about an article that has been nominated but not yet approved, please leave one-sentence note after the nomination. If you wish to be more detailed, put that information on the article's talk page.

If you disagree with the decision to include or exclude an article:

1. List the item here. Indicate your rationale and desired result.
2. Leave a note directing to this page on the talk page of the article.
3. Leave a note directing to this page after the article's entry, at:
   1. Wikipedia:Version 0.5,
   2. Wikipedia:Version 0.5 Nominations/Held nominations, or
   3. Wikipedia:Version 0.5 Nominations/Archived nominations.

Disputes can be moved from the "active" section to the "resolved" section when a clear consensus emerges and at least 24 hours from the most-recent comment. Given that the dispute is resolved with a clear consensus, anyone may then take the next appropriate step to either include or exclude the article. In other words, the article can then be moved among the "held", "approved", "nomination" and "review" pages.

I fail to see how this article can be important enough or qualify as WP:CORE when it is not on the approved list of countries, being simply a sub-national entity within the United Kingdom. Yorkshire Phoenix (talk • contribs) 10:14, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's certainly more important than a number of other things that have already been approved, such as Ann Arbor, Michigan. Maurreen 14:00, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Maurreen. NCurse _work 16:26, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Phoenix, England is not a country in the proper sense. Imagine randomly sticking in Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania, which is a region of Germany, and one with more power than England at that! England should not just be put on because of people's arrogance regarding its political status. Lofty 16:40, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Historically, England has been quite prominent in the world stage, so I have to agree with Maureen. Titoxd^(?!?) 20:10, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with that, history is an important part of any encyclopedia and for historic reasons, the inclusion of England, Wales and Scotland seems quite logical. Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 12:15, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think major subnational entities should be included, particularly for English speaking countries, and particularly ones with a high profile and high autonomy. One with 50 million people in it, even more so. We already have many FAs on Indian states included, and for the version after this I'd like to make sure we have all US/Australian/Indian states, Canadian provinces and the like. Also, when was the last time Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania won the FIFA World Cup? How many people are likely to search on the CD for England (rather than United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland)? And in comparison, how many are likely to search for Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania? This is the ENGLISH Wikipedia, remember, that alone is reason to include it. Walkerma 17:54, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kosovo, in the way it has been in the past two monts is pure Milosevic type propaganda. It has been continuously protected in that way by a number of Serb nationalists, it is a disgrace. It should not be included in anything. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.143.165.107 (talk • contribs) 14:02, 28 August 2006

Currently in held nominations' page. It should be included, because "The organisation actively provides health care and medical training to populations in more than 70 countries, and frequently insists on political responsibility in conflict zones such as Chechnya and Kosovo. MSF received the 1999 Nobel Peace Prize in recognition of its members' continuous effort to provide medical care in acute crises, as well as raising international awareness of potential humanitarian disasters." NCurse _work 14:37, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Given some of the other articles that have been included, Nobel winners should definitely not be failed on importance. I have no current knowledge of the article quality. So I would suggest renominating it, unless anyone else OKs the quality during this discussion. Maurreen 15:39, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Currently in held nominations' page. It should be included, because "was a pioneering American scientist and one of the world's most distinguished cytogeneticists. Awards and recognition of her contributions to the field followed, including the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine awarded to her in 1983 for the discovery of genetic transposition; to date, she has been the first and only woman to receive an unshared Nobel Prize in that category." NCurse _work 14:38, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Include. After bringing it up for discussion, I originally held this. But given some of the other articles that have been included, Nobel winners should definitely be included. Maurreen 15:34, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: My point is about the importance. I have no current knowledge of the article quality. So I would suggest renominating it, unless anyone else OKs the quality during this discussion. Maurreen 15:37, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

One of the most important geneticians in the history of genetics. Nobel winner. The quality is OK. NCurse _work 11:03, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Currently in held nominations' page. It should be included, because it is an important topic and an absolutly perfect article. NCurse _work 14:39, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Now included after FA review. Walkerma 17:57, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Passed for 0.5 as an FA by Nifboy but has some severe quality issues and it's FA status is currently likely to be removed via WP:FAR and it's not really higher than start class nither. Not our best work Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 21:11, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My choice would be to suspend this until the WP:FAR is resolved one way or another. Maurreen 02:11, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Been removed from WP:FA, isn't much of an article, I'm delisting. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 22:04, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]