Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Heaven of Transnistria - Wikipedia

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. - Mailer Diablo 15:37, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Original research, "joke", hoax, WP:NPOV, WP:V. I'm not sure there is a policy this page doesn't violate. - FrancisTyers · 14:34, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Data are sourced - there are links who prove the corectness of data from this article. So, there is no original research and no WP:V issue. Regarding WP:NPOV this is not a reason for deletion. In talk page of the article I agred to have a neutrality warning until the final version will be done.--MariusM 22:30, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• keep.--211.115.69.111 20:41, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Edit by banned user Bonaparte. —Khoikhoi 00:49, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin. The creator of the article, EvilAlex has engaged in "vote stacking". [1] - FrancisTyers · 17:41, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete — as nominator, of course - FrancisTyers · 14:34, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete — None of the longtime active editors of Transnistria related subjects, including myself, are currently involved or willing to cleanup/improve it. Title alone shows anti-Transnistrian bias. - Mauco 14:50, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mauco, is a misconception that you need to cleanup every single article about Transnistria from Wikipedia. There is place here for other opinions about Transnistria than yours. Maybe you have a longer period as Wikipedian, but I don't know if you have a longer life experience or a better knowledge about Transnistria than the contributors at this article.--MariusM 19:41, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No comment. (Don't want to bait a troll). - Mauco 21:42, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete is a very mild word in this instance. Badbilltucker 15:33, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• keep of course, great article, it is not finished et you could wait at list, what an attention EvilAlex 16:59, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• keep. Article is not yet finished, it will improve. Please join talk page for improvement proposals.--MariusM 17:48, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom; utterly laughable - in an almost cute sort of way. Sandstein 18:46, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete poorly written, political propaganda, crystalball. --Húsönd 19:39, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• keep.--211.115.69.100 20:41, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• keep.--211.115.69.111 20:41, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: It is forbidden the use of sock puppets for voting purposes. See WP:SOCK.--Húsönd 14:24, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Also see User:Bonaparte/sockpuppetry. :-) —Khoikhoi 00:49, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• To Alex and Marius: this article reads like a non-encyclopedic essay. I read some articles in their online media and I know that it's composed mostly of false or misleading propaganda, but if you really want to write about this, do it in an encyclopedic way. You could write an article about Media in Transnistria, but please use reliable references for each major affirmation. Also, the usage of jokes, even related to the subject, in Wikipedia articles is not ok. :-) bogdan 20:44, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Was that a delete or a keep? - Mauco 21:43, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A Delete :-) bogdan 21:56, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The valid points of the article can be integrated in other sections, but having a satirical essay as an article is against Wikipedia policy. TSO1D 22:24, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete. Entry doesn't have notability, its subject is not autonomous, the NPOV breach is enormous, and there is no evidence of common sense in creating articles such as this one. And fast. Dahn 22:48, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• keep gee that was a fun, we should keep this one 172.141.141.2 23:25, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Bonaparte. —Khoikhoi 00:49, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Propaganda. Resolute 05:26, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - with reservations, namely that a few bits of the article may be worth salvaging and putting into different articles. Otherwise, notwithstanding my own low opinion of the Transnistrian authorities, this should go. Biruitorul 06:36, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, obviously - the article is hopelessly pov, and, as TSO1D has noted, having a satirical essay as an article is against Wikipedia policy.--Aldux 11:06, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete badly written, anything legitimate can be put in the Transnistria article. PatGallacher 23:33, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: MariusM placed a notice on Wikipedia talk:Romanian Wikipedians' notice board 18:00, 20 September 2006 (UTC) notifying people of this deletion and specifically requesting a keep vote. I notice that no one made a note of that here. - Jmabel | Talk 04:29, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete. It is possible that there is article potential here. I doubt this is the correct title, though, even if there is, and this is such a mess right now that I can't tell what in it might be preserving. Bogdan's Media in Transnistria idea might be a good way to rework some of this, but it needs to be NPOV, etc., like any other Wikipedia article. This reads like it was written with a poorly wielded dagger. Might be worth user-fying to mine it for anything substantive… if there is anything substantive, which is hard to tell. - Jmabel | Talk 04:34, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. About as POV as it can ever get. No encyclopaedic value whatsoever either. -- int19h 06:19, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. BTW: the joke actually has a long antecedence among Soviet dissidents. Jamason 19:31, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The article most certainly needs some adjusting but there is an article potential there - no doubt. Jeorjika 14:56, 26 September 2006 (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.