Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allegations on corruption scandals involving Joko Widodo


 * 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. A consensus to delete has emerged after relisting. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 07:22, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Allegations on corruption scandals involving Joko Widodo

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The user who made it has a non-neutral POV on Joko Widodo, as he made clear in this Wikiquote edit. See also its history on enwiki and idwiki. Flix11 (talk) 17:08, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete Negative BLPs should be avoided. I don't see any reason to keep such articles. Kaweendra (talk) 11:46, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:23, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:23, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:23, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: No desire as yet to Keep, but not clear whether this material should be deleted or smerged; try a re-list
 * Smerge into Joko Widodo, not a significant enough figure to merit a separate article on this topic, particularly with the tertiary nature of the "allegations" listed. bd2412  T 17:43, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Britishfinance (talk) 19:33, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete. While I'm usually an advocate of merging or redirecting marginal articles, things are a bit different for negative content in the BLP topic space. The title here is hopelessly non-neutral, and the Wikiquote edit posted above strongly suggests intentional bias by the article editor. I'd view this as a tainted well; it's more trouble to ensure balance and check proper source use for anything that could be marginally salvaged from here. Better to cull entirely and let the main article develop (with due weight) any controversies that are reliably reported (much of this isn't, including an investigation that was dropped before trial, etc.). Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 20:18, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete as above. This article is beyond hope. VF9 (talk) 22:28, 13 November 2019 (UTC)


 * 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.