Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Religious Enlightenment Department


 * 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. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 01:13, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Religious Enlightenment Department

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

Spammy - the source article - http://ar.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D8%A5%D8%AF%D8%A7%D8%B1%D8%A9_%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%A5%D8%B9%D9%84%D8%A7%D9%85_%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%AF%D9%8A%D9%86%D9%8A - looks spammy as well B (talk) 16:56, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. per nom. Chasingsol (talk) 17:08, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - government departments are notable. Sure the page is spammy, in fact it is very spammy, but with such pages we tag and clean up, not delete. TerriersFan (talk) 19:57, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
 * "Religious Enlightenment Department" gets 2 g-hits. The article reads mostly like something spat out by an automated translator.  Actually, on further review, using Google translator, it looks like the thing is copied is a copyvio from .  Compare  and .  Look for "administrative decision No. 778 for the year 1996" and you can see that the two are the same.  An English translation of a copyvio article is still a copyvio. --B (talk) 21:58, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
 * No, articles that are blatant advertisement and/or copyvio are reasons for deletion. This is made clear in the deletion policy. MuZemike  ( talk ) 00:44, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete (G11/G12) if this is not a copyvio as noted above, then this is blatant advertisement. MuZemike  ( talk ) 00:44, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions.   -- • Gene93k (talk) 05:50, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions.   -- • Gene93k (talk) 05:50, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.   -- • Gene93k (talk) 05:50, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete unless someone comes up with some RS and fixes the possible copyvio--I'm unconvinced translation is automagically a copyvio, but it's still poor English. Jclemens (talk) 06:26, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete WITH no prejudice to recreation. If someone can use reliable third party sources to recreate then it should stand.  As it.  As it is there is no reliable information on this page. gren グレン 22:56, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd think posting a translation of copyrighted material would itself be a copyvio, in which case Speedy delete. Of course, no opposition to recreation if someone rewrites it in their own words and sources it adequately.  ITAQALLAH   01:03, 25 December 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.