Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Foreign interference with elections in democratic countries


 * 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 ~ trialsanderrors 02:13, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Foreign interference with elections in democratic countries


Article is little more that a conglomeration of various unsubstantiated and poorly sourced conspiracy theories forked in part from other articles, violates WP:V, WP:RS, WP:NOR and is a prime example of what is wrong with most article forks in the first place Torturous Devastating Cudgel 22:31, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge back into relevant articles or Delete. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 22:45, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete or Merge feels like an essay, not an article, violates WP:POV, WP:RS and probably WP:NOR GabrielF 22:48, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete or Merge. Somehow the KGB or Soviet interference or conspiracies are conspicuously absent from this article, which just goes to show why this is an just an article written in bad faith. I doubt it can be improved. Intangible 22:52, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete or Merge per nomination. Also need to remove the link from the election article. JungleCat    talk / contrib  23:33, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep and rewrite for NPOV and WP:V. If this article is to be kept, Chinese and Korean influence in US elections should be included as well, not just US influence on other countries.  It should not include foreign events that influence elections (e.g. terrorist attacks) but explicit influence like funding opposition parties or assassinating candidates.  The phenomenon itself is certainly notable and there's lots of verifiable evidence of it, but this article is poorly written as is.  Remember, the AfD process is not the place to address such things -- poorly written articles on notable topics should be rewritten, not AfD'd.-csloat 00:43, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep This is an important, and real subject. This article lacks sources, but I am sure this sort of thing has been documented(says a guy who has not checked yet). I think this needs alot of improvement. I think the and  tags are more productive than the AfD. Though I can understand why this was nominated, however I disagree. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 01:24, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete with no merging whatsoever. Unsourced, POV fork, no meaningful wikilinks, potentially infinitely expandable (what, no paragraph yet about how "Hugo Chavez owns Diebold!!!11!OMGWTF!11!"?), and not a subject title that any user would ever come searching for in the first place. Kill with extreme prejudice. --Aaron 03:12, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Question but how do you really feel about it? ;) csloat 03:30, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Lol, was that a Get Smart reference? HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 04:14, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Violates WP:NOR, WP:NPOV, WP:NPOV, Verifiability, WP:RS, WP:EL, and WP:FRINGE.  Put that in your pipe and smoke it.  [[Image:Matt_Devonshire2.jpg|20px]]Morton DevonshireYo  03:15, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Part POV fork of Operation Gladio, part WP:OR. Sandstein 05:53, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom and morton, this is a horrible POV fork and not a term that anyone would actually search for. I say just delete it and move on. --Nuclear Zer0 13:13, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete A proper article on this subject would need to be immensely long, detailed and provide reputable sources. It would also probably need to stretch back centuries (how about Ancient Greece?). An incomplete version would almost certainly be POV. The current version is terribly POV. --Folantin 13:30, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - burn with fire: this kind of POV-content-fork-gibberish should go outright. Nothing worth merging. Moreschi 16:12, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep - this has been a good brainstorming so far what else has to be added. if you look at the gladio-article there are enough references for what is said in the article. no need to copy those into this article.--Taintain 21:22, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per Morton Tbeatty 05:27, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom and Morton. - Crockspot 16:13, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom, or rename to the more accurately descriptive Yet more evil from the perfidious and hypocritical Americans. Tom Harrison Talk 23:58, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Honestly, I don't see this article ever being more than a copy-and-paste job from other articles. Also, the topic is too broad and vague. For example, should 'interference' by foreign people be included? What about Australian Citizen Rupert Murdock's interference in UK elections through his ownership of national media? In Bolivia people felt that Venezuelan President Chavez' open support for Morales was interference. But if public comments and opinions by foreigners are interference then Blair's expression of support for Bush would count. And what about EU support for national referenda? The topic is endless and prone to OR. Lord Seabhcán of Baloney 02:33, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Converting it to a straight list of articles on this topic might be an alternative to deletion. Lord Seabhcán of Baloney 03:33, 19 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete. The only value could be that warriors will concentrate here and stay out of the rest of WP. Pavel Vozenilek 19:32, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as per Morton Devonshire and as POV fork of Operation Gladio. --MCB 06:35, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete POV Fork. --Strothra 15:58, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as a fork article.--Jersey Devil 17:14, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete outright, no merge. Brimba 10:08, 20 November 2006 (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.