Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paperless society

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. Steven is of course correct that needing cleanup is generally not considered a valid argument for deletion. However, there is a consensus here that this article is so flawed that there is no content in it which can be cleaned up and made into an appropriate encyclopedia article. I also note that nobody has undertaken the task of re-writing the article, which could have prevented this outcome. No prejudice whatsoever against recreation at any time as a proper article. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:22, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Paperless society

Paperless society (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This page is not an encyclopedia article. It is a one-sided personal essay full of biases. It reads like one person's opinion, not a neutral article. Based on comments on the talk page, there appear to be conflict of interest and original research concerns as well. The topic itself seems notable enough, and I think we could have an article at this title, but I just don't think this is it. Gnome de plume (talk) 23:12, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

• Delete as beyond rescue. A classic WP:NOT. I could go on. --AJHingston (talk) 23:53, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:12, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:12, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

• Strong keep The idea of a paperless society is something that is notable and frequently discussed in literature. The article is pretty rambling and essay-like for sure, but needing cleanup is never a valid, policy-based reason for deletion. I think the nominator and whomever else is interested in this should be bold in removing anything POV, but otherwise there is no clear reason for assuming we shouldn't have an article on this. Note that the topic of a "paperless society" is distinct enough from paperless office to be used as clearly separate terms, even if the concepts overlap. Steven Walling 06:18, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
  • I just don't see any content in the current article that is salvageable. I thought that in such cases, unless someone wishes to step up and write a clean version, consensus was typically to delete with no bias towards recreation if someone comes along willing to do so. gnfnrf (talk) 23:11, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
    • "Writing a clean version" sounds like cleanup to me. Which isn't a policy-based reason to delete the article. It passes the general notability guideline clearly. Steven Walling 02:33, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
      • The policy that I believe applies is WP:NOT#OR, as it applies to the content of the article. The subject that the article should be about probably should have an article about it. I might even try to write one. But the content of the article isn't even really about that, and certainly isn't suitable for an encyclopedia. Now, this is a subtle distinction (the separation of the subject implied by the title and the subject of the article text) and I don't claim that it is ironclad. But consider the following thought experiment. If the article in question were titled "How and why to bring about a paperless society" it would be a.) a more accurate title for the article, and b.) a more obvious deletion candidate. At least, I think so. gnfnrf (talk) 17:21, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
        • I already demonstrated the topic is not original research. Just look at the Google Books results. Now, if it's written in an OR style and needs cleanup, I am happy to help cut out that kind of language and add the references you can see. But there is no reason to delete article wholesale as an original theory not documented in secondary source material. Steven Walling 23:38, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
• Delete It is possible that there could be a good article written on the concept of a paperless society. However, it won't resemble this article at all. This is a position paper without proper citations for most of its factual assertions, and with no references at all that demonstrate the notability of the subject. Furthermore, the author has some WP:OWN problems which are likely to impede any attempts to evolve this version towards something more appropriate for the encyclopedia (such efforts would probably be best suited by essentially starting over.) gnfnrf (talk) 18:58, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
• Delete Despite being a notable topic, I think this article should be deleted because the content is entirely inappropriate, as described above. Deli nk (talk) 19:38, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
• Delete - As per Deli nk. Rcsprinter (talk) 16:07, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
• Delete without prejudice to recreation as above. Neutrality^talk 21:46, 25 May 2011 (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.