Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Moslanka


 * 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. If the article creator wants the information userfied to try and get it to establish notability, then I can do that. Wizardman 19:54, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Moslanka

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Biased, no third-party sources to establish notability or verify facts. Max S em(Han shot first!) 19:30, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep &mdash; If you believe the article is biased, that's not a reason to delete it--rather, it's a reason to fix it yourself or let someone else do it. You certainly shouldn't nuke someone else's hard work just because you can't be bothered to improve it yourself.  As for notability, well, so what?  How is that relevant?  Remember, we're not bound to obey any "rules" or "policies"; we're simply obligated to make the encyclopedia better, and I fail to see how removing factual, verifiable information makes the encyclopedia better.  Kurt Weber ( Go Colts! ) 20:56, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Pearllysun (talk) 22:10, 10 March 2008 (UTC)dear administrator : i really respect your concern that wikipedia must be a place free from spam and add based pages, and since my article has been added to those needed editing / deletion  i have completely revised the article with respect to your concern and wikipedia policy , i moreover have removed infos that might look like a promotion or something of some sort of an add , me being a medico never wish to use wikipedia for any wrong intention or any , so i wish to hear from you if my article needs more editing or revision to bring it to encyclopedia standard , i would welcome any type of assistance / mail from you  since the same would encourage me and assist me in creating great articles in future and would add boost to my wish to become an administrator in future.

regards pearllysunPearllysun (talk) 22:10, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Inexperienced contributor has shown himself willing to co-operate in dealing with bias. Heavy-handed approach is not warranted. Try negotiating directly first. Eclecticology (talk) 00:57, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The 'inexperienced contributor' 'willing to co-operate' has been blocked for sockpuppet use, and others have provided evidence that the article was submitted before at different article name.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 08:21, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

*Keep doesn't seem to be an add support or a sock puppets work, but an inexperienced contributers work .moreover the inexperienced member has shown full support and willingness to  if at all edition is needed try negotiating directly first. Heavy-handed approach is not warranted. Бриллиантжемчуг (talk) 15:32, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete unless 3rd party sources appear. This seems to be essentially an advert.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 02:47, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep but trim and remove the contact details. J I P  | Talk 06:06, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Note to closwing admin sockpuppetry? Spartaz Humbug! 22:55, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Sockpuppet confirmed see: (User_talk:Pearllysun)- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 08:21, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Sockpuppetry is about the person, not the article, and is being dealt with elsewhere. For this discussion the strikethrough of the comments should be sufficient. Eclecticology (talk) 22:31, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep The contributor has expressed his willingness to improve the article. Removing the contact details in the article (phone number) and improving the article will be a more appropriate approach.  BGM  Talk 16:40, 11 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete as spam. It should be noted that this is almost letter-by-letter a recreation of the previously speedied TF Quasar International (apparently another name for the same company, or at least an affiliate/associate thereof). -- Orange Mike   &#x007C;   Talk  18:36, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah. Google cache caught it, see: - (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 22:41, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
 * In fact FWIW it's been deleted 3 times so far: - (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 22:43, 12 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep, but strip down and make it more factual. Also, a lot of information in the article is duplicated in the author's article on Medical Education in Russia and should be consolidated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kai a simon (talk • contribs) 20:00, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - How do we know we aren't promoting a scam? I Googled and found some fishy sounding stuff and some people very unhappy with their association with this entity. WAS 4.250 (talk) 21:31, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete No sources? wp:corp therefore not met. Spartaz Humbug! 22:57, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete since no third-party sources seem to be available, and because it is an almost word-for-word copy of this (user-page sandbox for banned sockpuppet). Per WAS 4.250 and others, I'm not convinced this isn't a scam, or some kind of blanket marketing campaign. Even if kept, the article would need some serious trimming. --PeruvianLlama(spit) 17:51, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep, per Kurt Weber. This AFD is absurd on its face. I'm not even going to go into details of why I believe it's so ridiculous, because it's self-evident. That such things could even be nominated for deletion on this, the greatest encyclopedia of the world, which aims to encompass all subjects notable (and this subject is clearly notable), and that others could embrace the suggestion that it's non-notable, as though marching lock-step behind the nominator, is beyond my ken. Please, we must be independent thinkers here; we must not simply go with the crowd and be taken in by such foolishness. I have nothing further to say about this. Obuibo Mbstpo (talk) 22:40, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Note The above user is currently involved in a debate regarding vote canvassing at AfD and has copied this same statement to multiple active AfDs. --Torchwood Who? (talk) 23:07, 14 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not even going to go into details of why I believe it's so ridiculous, because it's self-evident. - Vague handwaving: always a winning rhetorical strategy. --Calton | Talk 23:02, 14 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete. Not even a hint of a suggestion of encyclopedic merit. --Calton | Talk 23:02, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete as recreated spam (or even possibly hoax) and as per Orange Mike. Impossible to write an encyclopedic article without independent reliable sources. Abecedare (talk) 23:18, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep and stub It seems there is a core of verifiable information in the article. I don't want to waste time fixing the article during an AfD, I've done this before and, in spite of taking the article down to a verifiable minimum, it was still deleted, so, as long as the article is immediately exposed to deletion, I'm not going to fix it. AfD prevents article improvement, or, more accurately, invites useless labor. Close as keep and I'll fix it, leaving all the History there for anyone else to work on. Close as delete, create more work for another administrator to recover a deleted article for someone to work on. Might or might not happen, and no net gain over keeping and stubbing. Efficiency. It really should be considered.--Abd (talk) 18:33, 16 March 2008 (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.