Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Why didn't you invest in Eastern Poland? (2nd nomination)


 * 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   keep. postdlf (talk) 22:43, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Why didn't you invest in Eastern Poland?
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This article was written by, a now-blocked sock of a site-banned user, with no significant contributions by others. This was apparently not noticed or discussed in the previous AfD. The deletion is necessary per WP:CSD in order to enforce the banning policy and so as to not to incentivize ban evasion. My speedy deletion of the article was undone by another administrator with the comment "I'll take responsibility for it". However, this statement does not change the fact that the speedy deletion criterion still applies because there are no significant contributions by non-banned users. The article should therefore still be deleted. In addition, the topic - a short-lived investment advertising campaign - isn't exactly what I'd call essential content for an encyclopedia; it received media coverage apparently mostly for its odd slogan, which makes the whole topic border on WP:NOTNEWS.  Sandstein  22:07, 1 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep. G5 is not in the list of valid criteria for speedying a page that survived an AfD. --Sammy1339 (talk) 23:04, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep. This was mentioned at Deletion_review/Log/2014_November_1 and already discussed well over there &mdash; it almost feels sort of perhaps like WP:DEADHORSE at this point. The article is well-sourced and well-written. It clearly satisfies WP:NOTE. It passed WP:AFD last time at Articles for deletion/Why didn't you invest in Eastern Poland? after being open for more than seven days, as "Keep". I don't see why we need to overturn the result of the prior AFD. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 01:19, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 01:29, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 01:29, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 01:29, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 01:29, 2 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep. Seems to have been a notable advertising campaign, mentioned in the advertising trade press and mentioned in the Polish press, even if most of the wider notability was in its parodying. So Sandstein finally succeeded in getting Russavia? I did an essay on issues related to the Eastern European Mailing List affair for an IT college course I was taking when the scandal broke. Scared me away from Wikipedia for years. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 02:59, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:30, 2 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep - G5 is not a valid criteria to speedy delete pages that have survived deletion discussions. Banning policy states "...This does not mean that edits must be reverted just because they were made by a banned editor (obviously helpful changes... ... can be allowed to stand)...", and "...If editors... ... made good-faith contributions to the page or its talk page [note: an AFD talks about an article]... ...then decide on a case-by-case basis what to do...". We need to consider in this case, whether this is a helpfull change that can be kept. An AFD decided to keep the article. Without a new reason to delete, the AFD should stand. - Sincerely, Taketa (talk) 19:19, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
 * PS: Note that the admin who reverted the deletion with the statement "I'll take responsibility for it", was following banning policy, which states "Editors who reinstate edits made by a banned editor take complete responsibility for the content". Sincerely, Taketa (talk) 19:36, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep per and close per the snowball clause. (t)  Josve05a  (c) 20:39, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep - Very nice, well-sourced piece, actually. Passes GNG. A credit to Wikipedia. Carrite (talk) 23:04, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
 * For the record, this is a piece by our Australian friend, Russavia. Carrite (talk) 23:06, 3 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep - A well written, well sourced article of an advertising slogan that went viral. JTdale   Talk 02:43, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep - this article was kept per a recent AFD. The only new claim for deletion is that it was created by a banned user; however, once an admin in good standing says that (s)he will "take responsibility for it", while restoring the page, knowing that the article was written by the banned user in question, makes the author's identity irrelevant. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 07:16, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep: Are we really going to be bringing out the pitchforks against Russavia, despite the actual notability of the topic demonstrated by third-party reliable sources? There's a fine line between upholding policy in response to disruptive editing by troublesome users, and deleting something out of spite. Deleting this article does no benefit to the Wikipedia project, and if WP:BAN is the problem, then I'd suggest a simple WP:IAR since deleting this page is clearly a barrier to improving Wikipedia. -- benlisquare T•C•E 12:11, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep. CSD G5 does not require the article to be deleted; any editor in good standing who wishes to take responsibility for the edits may do so, and in this case one of them has.  I see no other policy-based reason for deleting the article; it seems well enough sourced. —Psychonaut (talk) 08:51, 7 November 2014 (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.