Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Armed Forces Scandals of Malaysia


 * 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 speedy deleted  by. Non-admin closure. &mdash; KuyaBriBri Talk 02:07, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Armed Forces Scandals of Malaysia

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Contentious uncited essay. OP deleted prod. Sole reference markets model airplanes. PhGustaf (talk) 00:30, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment I have no opinion about the content of the article. PhGustaf (talk) 00:33, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete G4 as "a sufficiently identical and unimproved copy, having any title, of a page deleted via a deletion discussion". Malaysian Military Scandals had substantially identical text (notably, an identical lead paragraph) and was deleted and redirected 3 February 2010.  The discussion is at Articles_for_deletion/Malaysian_Military_Scandals. - DustFormsWords (talk) 00:45, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - The relevant people might also wish to investigate whether the article creator, User:TomCruise55, is the same person as User:Roman888, who created the previous page and is indefinitely blocked for "massive copyright violations". - DustFormsWords (talk) 00:48, 24 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:02, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:02, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete (G4, G5, G10 (org) and G12); salt; block. This is a copyright violation created by a sock of User:Roman888. There's a long sordid history to this but the short answer is it has to go and so does the sock. This was initially deleted (actually, merged to Malaysian Armed Forces as a POV fork) but was subsequently found out to be a copyvio after it was merged . Posting this on ANI for immediate attention. --Mkativerata (talk) 01:03, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment I have speedy deleted the page re G4/G5/G10 complaints, but do not know enough about the history to block the user. People are quite free to follow up with me though. Buckshot06 (talk) 02:01, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks - I'll leave it up on ANI in that case; he has a few watchers there who know the history. --Mkativerata (talk) 02:03, 24 March 2010 (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.