Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Deficient of state institutions and additionally other institution’s efficiency diluted Democracy


 * 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. PeaceNT 03:40, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Deficient of state institutions and additionally other institution’s efficiency diluted Democracy

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

This is clearly an essay of some sort and doesn't belong on wikipedia. I usually just tag pages for speedy deletion, but there doesn't seem to be an appropriate speedy delete rationale. *** Clamster 22:58, 23 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Speedy delete. OR. Odd that there doesn't appear to be a rationale, but I agree; I cannot see one. Groovy title, though. Shame to lose it. --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:07, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The article can't be speedy deleted, I'm afraid, because not a single deletion criterion applies to this article. The article is not patent nonsense, is not a test page, is not vandalism, is not a recreation of deleted material, was not created by a banned user, speedy deletion is not requested by the author, it's not an orphaned talk page, there is no exceptional controversy that would warrant Office intervention, it's not an attack page, it's not blatant advertising, it's not a blatant copyright infringement, it provides context, it's not a foreign language article, it has content, it hasn't been transwikied and it's not about an unremarkable person, group, company or website. A  ecis Brievenbus 23:28, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Of course it can, and probably will be, under WP:SNOW or WP:IAR. Thank you for the speedy deletion criteria revision; as I had noted that there was no speedy criteria, there's some redundancy in your comment.. You might as easily have cited the non-criterion for Original Research. In this instance, it appears easy to tell whether the article is original research. --Tagishsimon (talk)
 * Delete as original research. A  ecis Brievenbus 23:11, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete This is someone's essay, most likely plagiarized. &mdash; Michael Linnear   23:26, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete It is a term paper, supposedly of the author.he tried to upload it as a pdf file into wikipedia. `'mikka 23:47, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong delete. We are not a term paper repository. -- Dennis The Tiger   (Rawr and stuff) 01:01, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete somehow (find a rule!). JJL 03:37, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete as a copyright violation: We cannot be certain that the poster was the author (although this is highly likely), and can be sure that this was a previously composed work, which means that it automatically is copyrighted.  If that piece of wikilawyering is worthless, then I would submit that this is blatantly neither an encyclopedic topic nor a work that acts as an encyclopedia article.  IMO that in and of iteslf should be a speedy deletion criteria. --EMS | Talk 17:55, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Be that as it may, I'm going on the AGF side and assuming that the poster is the author. I don't think that, without evidence, we can assume that it really is a copyvio on those grounds.  That it is unencyclopedic is not a speedy criteria - and as near as I can tell, there is good reason for that. -- Dennis The Tiger   (Rawr and stuff) 05:47, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I looked at this old version. It is badly written and not helped by an inappropriate title: Nepal's progress to Democracy might be more appropriate.  If kept, it needs the tag essay, but it is so appalling that (unless cleaned up within the AFD period it should be a Delete.  The whole thing seems to be a WP:POV rant on how Nepal cannot manage to become democratic.  Peterkingiron 23:11, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as OR, but probably well-intentioned.  DGG 17:55, 27 May 2007 (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.