Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Enforcement of the Mediated Agreement


 * 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. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone  00:13, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

The Enforcement of the Mediated Agreement

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

An essay chock full of original research. Ironholds (talk) 18:36, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Very poorly defined topic, no salvageable material. Politizer talk / contribs 18:49, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Fails WP:NOT. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 19:47, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete As per nom.PanydThe muffin is not subtle 20:01, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Wikipedia is not a free host. &mdash; RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 21:04, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Article is in outline form -- not even one day old. No sign of OR, if anything it looks like lecture notes which would serve as an outline for an article. "No salvageable material" is a judgement which is not borne out unless that person asserts special expertise in the area. Author not contacted, nor any attempt apparent to improve the article. Collect (talk) 21:26, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Again, see here. For someone complaining about 'no attempt to contact the author prior to deletion' your reading around the subject seems noticeably lacking too. Ironholds (talk) 21:27, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. And it doesn't matter if the article isn't a day old. Depending on the quality, some articles are deleted within mere minutes of creation. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 23:53, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete. What is this mess? It seems to be original research. Timneu22 (talk) 02:45, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment OR is not a reason to speedy. Declined, no harm in letting the AfD run. StarM  05:11, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. See also Articles for deletion/Enforcement of Dispute Resolution Outcomes for what looks like a very similar article. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:46, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Transfer to userspace for much needed improvement Power.corrupts (talk) 20:29, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete, Wikipedia isn't a place for essays. I agree with Ironholds, this is an even worse article than Nofal is.  Nyttend (talk) 06:17, 21 January 2009 (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.