Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jigawa ethanol programme
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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 no consensus. --Ezeu 18:43, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Jigawa ethanol programme[edit]
This page is an advertisiment, a campaign speech, an unencyclopedic entry. Speaks of unproven benefits contrary to wikipedia not being a crystal ball as well. Indrian 15:24, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom --Bill.matthews 15:40, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete in its present form. It should be noted that this text had been proposed as an Article for Creation and was declined. It was then created despite this declining. The subject itself may be deserving of an article, but it needs to be written from scratch and properly sourced. Thus, I propose if deleted here, it be without prejudice, in case someone decides to write a proper article. Akradecki 16:05, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - this is a press release, not an encyclopedia article. Once the program has begun, then perhaps there'll be something to say about it. As it stands, though, it doesn't sound like anything more than a blue-sky proposal. Zetawoof(ζ) 16:24, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, AFD is not cleanup. Kappa 16:35, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletions. -- Kappa 16:35, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Once the program is actually implemented, it might ecome notable. Not much at google. This just looks like promotional material to build support for the thing. WP is not a soapbox :) Dlohcierekim 21:49, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and clean up. I found one article on it to compliment the one in our article. There seems to be enough that we can verify from reliable sources, especially taking WP:CSB into account. William Pietri 00:24, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, I do agree that as it stands now the material is not written for wikipedia however it contains information which could be used to improve a future article. I also agree that the point about WP:CSB is a valid reason for having an article on the topic. AndrewBuck 20:50, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep content but preferrably not the present way: this belongs in an article that either shows current politics, economics, etc with ongoing changes in Nigeria, or a historical overview (or detail) on major Nigerian projects, or an overview of African agriculture/oil/..., or a worldwide view on gaining oil from agricultural products. Do not expect quick reactions and improvements for articles from non-English-speaking and/or developing countries as one may expect from the US or Great-Britain (WP:CSB) - an article like this has a signal function. At the appropriate moment, the content should be available and easily found by search operations, thus definitely do not destroy it. Meanwhile, the boxes at top of the article can sufficiently warn readers of the shortcomings. — SomeHuman 20 Sep2006 18:34 (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.