- 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. It's already been listed twice, so I'm hesitant to relist it again. Apparently, the large list of references were added after this review started, and may not have gotten a proper review. I admit, this certainly has all the hallmarks of a position paper, but, even ignoring the WP:SPA comments, I just don't see sufficient arguments in favor of deletion to call this a consensus to delete. No prohibition against immediate re-nomination if somebody feels strongly about it. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:43, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
- Agrarian Bonds in Peru ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
the article (which, incidentally, lacks sources almost completely) is clearly written by an advocacy group to right a claimed Great Wrong. (Not my words; other editor just reverted to something that didn't have this tagged.) RotubirtnoC ( talk) 22:59, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
The page on "Agrarian Bonds in Peru" was previously a very brief article that lacked sources, and a deletion request was in order for the page. However, upon adding 57 sources and a lengthy amount of factual information, I removed both the request for citations as well as the deletion request, since I believed both issues to have been addressed. Many factual and unbiased sources have been added as citations and the accuracy of the information presented has greatly improved. Since the deletion request was submitted when the page was scarcely cited and only very brief, I believe it is now irrelevant. — PagoJusto ( talk) 15:18, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 23:23, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Peru-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 23:23, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
- Delete at best for now because the article currently has no signs of actually looking like a better encyclopedia article, WP:TNT at best or draft and userfy if needed as this is not yet acceptable. SwisterTwister talk 00:13, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — UY Scuti Talk 17:42, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
The article itself discusses a topic which is not mainstream and the addition and volume of source material serves to strengthen the points made therein.
73scooty (
talk)
23:23, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — UY Scuti Talk 17:28, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
- keep. AfD WP:NOTCLEANUP. Huge parts of the text are factual. 'Advocacy' may be fixed much more easily than the 'Great Wrong' which look like it was. Staszek Lem ( talk) 21:47, 24 February 2016 (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.
- 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. It's already been listed twice, so I'm hesitant to relist it again. Apparently, the large list of references were added after this review started, and may not have gotten a proper review. I admit, this certainly has all the hallmarks of a position paper, but, even ignoring the WP:SPA comments, I just don't see sufficient arguments in favor of deletion to call this a consensus to delete. No prohibition against immediate re-nomination if somebody feels strongly about it. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:43, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
- Agrarian Bonds in Peru ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
the article (which, incidentally, lacks sources almost completely) is clearly written by an advocacy group to right a claimed Great Wrong. (Not my words; other editor just reverted to something that didn't have this tagged.) RotubirtnoC ( talk) 22:59, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
The page on "Agrarian Bonds in Peru" was previously a very brief article that lacked sources, and a deletion request was in order for the page. However, upon adding 57 sources and a lengthy amount of factual information, I removed both the request for citations as well as the deletion request, since I believed both issues to have been addressed. Many factual and unbiased sources have been added as citations and the accuracy of the information presented has greatly improved. Since the deletion request was submitted when the page was scarcely cited and only very brief, I believe it is now irrelevant. — PagoJusto ( talk) 15:18, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 23:23, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Peru-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 23:23, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
- Delete at best for now because the article currently has no signs of actually looking like a better encyclopedia article, WP:TNT at best or draft and userfy if needed as this is not yet acceptable. SwisterTwister talk 00:13, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — UY Scuti Talk 17:42, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
The article itself discusses a topic which is not mainstream and the addition and volume of source material serves to strengthen the points made therein.
73scooty (
talk)
23:23, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — UY Scuti Talk 17:28, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
- keep. AfD WP:NOTCLEANUP. Huge parts of the text are factual. 'Advocacy' may be fixed much more easily than the 'Great Wrong' which look like it was. Staszek Lem ( talk) 21:47, 24 February 2016 (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.