Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Corruption in Angola

Corruption in Angola

Corruption in Angola (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Blatant POV issues. The first line tells the story: "Corruption in Angola is a pervasive phenomenon, hindering economic growth and government-sponsored liberalization programs." The assertions may be correct (I suspect they are), but this is simply not appropriate. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 03:32, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

• Keep, properly referenced instance of an incomplete series. Corruption is widely recognized as a pervasive social problem, especially in Africa, and it is receiving increasingly intense attention, so I'm not sure what your problem with this topic is. --Dhartung | Talk 03:40, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment: Because it takes a blatant point of view, not a neutral one. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 03:54, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment There's a point of view that corruption is good? I hope that's not what you mean. What do you mean? --Dhartung | Talk 06:01, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
      • Of course not. But one man's corruption is often another man's regular course of business. "Corruption" is often a very subjective term, depending on whose ox is being gored. I could care less which side one takes, but NPOV policy says that we don't take sides. That's my problem here. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 07:54, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
        • Could I give you $5 to withdraw your nomination, then? --Dhartung | Talk 08:26, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
          • Dang! I could use that five bucks. No, sorry, but if the article were rewritten to tone down the POV issues, I'd withdraw. (For free.) - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 08:31, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
• Merge to Politics of Angola. Highly POV title. The problem may be pervasive, but the parent article is sorely lacking and this would lead to a better representation.-Wafulz (talk) 03:43, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment What is POV about the ttile? That merely pairing the terms implies that Angola is more corrupt? Then waht about, say, Crime in X articles? --Dhartung | Talk 06:03, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
• Speedy keep The original posting of the prod template is improper at best, vandalism at worst. This AfD is a WP:POINT violation. Jose João (talk) 03:59, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment: How could you possibly call this vandalism and keep a straight face? Wikipedia has a long-established policy against articles which promote a particular point of view, and this article goes against that policy. The prod was very much in order, and when it was removed, an AfD was then in order. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 04:12, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

A 24-hour block would be lenient. Jose João (talk) 04:29, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

• • I STRONGLY object to such a comment. I have made a good-faith nomination for an article that deserves to be deleted becaue it is blatantly in violation of NPOV procedures. You, as the original author, have yet to give an indication as to why your article should be kept. You have only cried foul and tried to disparage me for pointing out the policy violations in this article. Let me be clear: when it comes to a point of view about the subject itself, I have none. Frankly, I could care less about the political problems of Angola. In fact, I tend to agree with much of what the article alleges, but my point is that such an article does not belong at Wikipedia, at least in its current form. If the presentation were more even-handed, I would not have such an opinion. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 07:54, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep Yes, the idea that corruption is a major problem in Angola is a point of view; incidentally, this "blatant point of view" is the opinion of every major source who has looked at the problem, like the International Monetary Fund [1], The Economist [2][3], Transparency International, etc. Can you find me any sources which try to claim that corruption in Angola is not a problem and prove that editors of this article are unduly suppressing those views? (Which wouldn't be grounds for deletion anyway). Some parts feel a bit like a WP:OR laundry list of every time an event happened in Angola and someone yelled "corruption!", but the article as a whole is quite appropriate and this series should be expanded to other countries as well. cab (talk) 06:58, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. POV is no reason to delete an otherwise decently referenced article. User:Dorftrottel 08:47, January 22, 2008
• Keep the article is flawed and needs to be expanded from just being a collection of incidents (a discussion of what contributes to corruption and what's being done about it should be included) but a peer review would be better than deletion. Given the article's problems, however, I don't see why nominating it for deltion is bad faith as it is unbalanced without a discussion of counter-corruption issues. --Nick Dowling (talk) 09:20, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Is that what the other !voters are concerned about -- that it's just "Angola's got all this corruption", so to speak, and not enough "Angola has its own Eliot Ness on the case"? --Dhartung | Talk 11:16, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

• That's a very good way to put it. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 19:40, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

• Keep per Forftrottel. POV is something to fix, not delete. Hobit (talk) 14:37, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
• Weak keep: The article concerns a important subject but it fails NPOV. Should be reworked. --Funper (talk) 23:48, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
• Comment - I note in review that the article proposed in this Afd includes a navigation template at its foot. This template presently includes a number of redlinks to other such articles on corruption in other African countries; as well as some existing blacklinks to articles which on first review seem to suffer the same NPOV issues which this article does at present. On the basis of the WP:5P I think the titles of these articles are inherently POV in nature, and my concern is not that we couldn't get one well sourced article out of this subject, but that creating a whole flotilla of such articles would break WP:5P. I am also concerned that no one has placed a note on the WP:Africa project talk page re the issues surrounding this subject - which I have now done. On the basis that the title's of the proposed articles are inherently POV, the volume of potential POV/debate in keeping them NPOV, and the resulting need to closely monitor these articles to avoid a clear clash with WP:5P; my current suggestion is that material already in these articles is distributed into the appropraite country articles, or political/government sub articles. I'd also like to see a clear apology to the nominator Realkyhick from Jose João - a daft comment on this Afd which for me breaks WP:AGF. Rgds, --Trident13 (talk) 02:22, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Last time I checked, POV is not a reason for deletion so sorry, no, this AfD is disruption to make a point. You secondly claim that the title of this series of articles - Corruption in X country - is inherently POV. In the future, please refrain from referring to "WP:5P" when you clearly, only, mean WP:NPOV. You say you posted on the talkpage for WikiProject Africa notifying members of this AfD. What you should have done is list this under Africa-related AfDs. I suggest you strike out your above comment and issue an apology to Africa WikiProject members for violating longstanding process. Perhaps, instead of commenting on my earlier comment ("daft"), you consider the wisdom and civility of your own comments before posting. Thanks, Jose João (talk) 05:01, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

• This nomination is not disrupting anything or about disrupting anything. Once again, you are avoiding addressing the issues of this AfD directly, and instead crying foul about others. Don't tell us why you think everyone else is wrong. Tell us why your article is right. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 06:08, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Why should I bother? No one agrees with you. "Everyone else" consists of only you. Notice the "Keep" votes? Jose João (talk) 07:02, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Why won't you cite actual issues? What have you to hide? - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 09:12, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

• KEEP. POV issues can be resolved, and aren't as extensive as nom believes, given that article is well-referenced. The title is not inherently POV - there is corruption everywhere, and it's not POV to discuss how much and what forms corruption takes in a specific country. Argyriou (talk) 06:55, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. —Jose João (talk) 05:12, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

• Keep valid and genuine encyclopedic subject. Article needs expansion and rewriting for possible POV checking, not deletion. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 13:55, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

• Keep, per Users Dhartung and Argyriou. NPOV can be dealt with by including sources (if any) that state that corruption is not relevant or prevalent or problematical in Angola. Please note that there should be immediate stubs created for all sovereign nations (except Finland - grin).

Note: This vote in no way supports the POV of User: Perspicacite that this Afd was without merit. Alice^✉ 18:29, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I deprecate this reversion of my comments above by User: Perspicacite which is contrary to Wikipedia:TALK#Behavior that is unacceptable. Alice^✉ 02:43, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

• Keep as per Otolemur, cab, Argyriou. Edward321 (talk) 07:10, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

NOTE I've posted a notice to WP:ANI regarding Perspicacite's behavior on this AfD and on the article. Argyriou (talk) 06:52, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

• Comment: From this, it can be seen that Wikipedia's current use of "corruption" in page titles is extremely selective and unbalanced. -- Visviva (talk) 08:56, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

• Merge to Angolan politics article. -- Visviva (talk) 08:56, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

• Keep Wiki's coverage of corruption is very unbalanced. Minor incidents of local corruption in the US such as Operation Boptrot are covered in detail. We even have a catgory just to document historical corruption in the UK. We need more articles like this one to reduce that systemic bias. --MediaMangler (talk) 16:56, 26 January 2008 (UTC)