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. May be notable but its current content is unsalvageable promotion. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:42, 24 April 2020 (UTC) reply

Kazakhstan 2050 Strategy

Kazakhstan 2050 Strategy (  | 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 whole thing reads as an advertisement. I'm sure the topic covered is otherwise notable, but I believe there might be some covert WP:UPE going on here given its structure and content. – MJL  ‐Talk‐ ^☖ 19:42, 3 April 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. – MJL  ‐Talk‐ ^☖ 19:42, 3 April 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. – MJL  ‐Talk‐ ^☖ 19:42, 3 April 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kazakhstan-related deletion discussions. – MJL  ‐Talk‐ ^☖ 19:42, 3 April 2020 (UTC) reply

• Keep per WP:AGF. It was created by an admitted fan, not a paid editing. It needs trimming, but there's no substantive reason to delete it. Bearian ( talk) 02:25, 9 April 2020 (UTC) reply

  I refer to my previous comment on the related AFD. Also, I wouldn't say this needs trimming because I could not find a single line of prose worth saving. – MJL  ‐Talk‐ ^☖ 17:31, 9 April 2020 (UTC) reply

• Keep — The subject is certainly notable—I can turn up a range of secondary literature discussing the Strategy from a quick Google ( [1], [2], [3]). The article is one-sided but the claim that there's nothing worth saving looks overblown to me—e.g. most of the "Overall aims" section just summarises the announced objectives of the programme. Probably needs trimming and balancing, not deletion. — Nizolan ^{( talk · c.)} 00:13, 11 April 2020 (UTC) reply

  @ Nizolan: That section would have to be re-written to comply with Wikipedia's Manual of Style. You're not supposed to say what something's intention is in Wikipedia's voice. – MJL  ‐Talk‐ ^☖ 14:42, 12 April 2020 (UTC) reply

  @ MJL: Yes, it would, but the section doesn't use "Wikipedia's voice" throughout. "The three key aims of the policy are: to define new markets where Kazakhstan can form productive partnerships and create new sources of economic growth, to create a favorable investment climate, and to develop an effective private sector and public-private partnerships." is fine as a description of the aims of the policy. You could definitely edit it to "According to the Kazakh government," or "The three stated aims" or something like that to make it clearer, but that's not a radical enough change to merit deleting the entire thing and starting from scratch. — Nizolan ^{( talk · c.)} 16:30, 12 April 2020 (UTC) reply

• Comment.@ Bearian: Did you want to change your !vote here to reflect the other AFD or nah? – MJL  ‐Talk‐ ^☖ 14:42, 12 April 2020 (UTC) reply
• Delete per this and the other discussion. Bearian ( talk) 23:37, 14 April 2020 (UTC) reply

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.