Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Republic of Eastern Turkestan and Axis Powers Links


 * 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, despite Charles' valiant attempts at rewriting it into something resembling English prose. It's still unsourced, at any rate. Sandstein 19:29, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Republic of Eastern Turkestan and Axis Powers Links

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

The article has it's problems, but none of them are reason for deletion. I'm doing this procedural nomination, to see if the problems are fixable or if this really should be a deletion candidate. Mgm|(talk) 09:58, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Close AfD. AfDs are not meant as improvement drives.--Ioannes Pragensis 11:03, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Fine, in that case I oppose the prodding of this articles as none of its reasons were valid reason for deletion. I'm now nominating this for deletion for it's NPOV violations and attempts to discuss similarities of two unrelated entities. - Mgm|(talk) 11:15, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - unsourced content-fork of First East Turkestan Republic and Second East Turkestan Republic —  irides centi   (talk to me!)  13:17, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Barely coherent and unnecessary. Salad Days 16:19, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - so badly written it's almost impossible to understand. In need of a complete rewrite, otherwise valueless as an encyclopedia article. andy 20:44, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. I'll do some rewriting. Charles Matthews 06:27, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge into First East Turkestan Republic. There is something here, but not really enough to stand alone. Charles Matthews 07:17, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - without prejudice toward him personally, this is vintage Torb37, a user well known for contributing articles that are dramatically sub-par: atrociously written, no references, no context, no response to messages placed on his talk page ever, and so forth. Biruitorul 22:39, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Would you care to express that comment in terms which bear at least some marginal relation to deletion policy, rather than in words expressing your opinion of another editor? By the way, said editor has contributed much of interest. Charles Matthews 20:23, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes: "dramatically sub-par: atrociously written, no references, no context" applies to this article as well. And I have yet to see anything of interest from him; I would like to be proved wrong. Biruitorul 17:31, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I've certainly seen things of interest from him/her - e.g. - but of all the interesting-if-true things s/he adds to articles, they invariably get reverted/rewritten due to the wild, unsourced claims. I don't see how this one's any different —  irides centi   (talk to me!)  19:33, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Right, that was my point: he's a good-faith editor whose contributions need tons of cleanup work, and even then sometimes remain indescipherable. Biruitorul 23:57, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - The article is barely coherent, and badly written.  I guess anything is possible, but realistically speaking, I don't see how it could be salvaged.  Turgidson 16:40, 13 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.