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.
Meandering mess with no central topic, no sources, no notability. If there is a topic here, then
WP:TNT and start over. This has been sitting to rot for over 10 years and no one will even so much as look at it. Ten Pound Hammer • (
What did I screw up now?) 18:52, 13 January 2018 (UTC)reply
"If there is a topic here"? Do you think that there might not be any education in Moldova? Maybe you class it as a
shithole country?
86.17.222.157 (
talk) 19:07, 13 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Keep The topic is clearly notable and
AfD is not cleanup.
WP:TNT is not policy; our actual
policy is that "Even poor articles, if they can be improved, are welcome.".
Andrew D. (
talk) 19:24, 13 January 2018 (UTC)reply
I've been racking my aging brains to try to remember where such an offensive statement was made in a deletion nomination statement before, and have just remembered that it was
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Theatre of Zambia, where it was claimed that there might be no theatre in Zambia, and it turns out that it was the same nominator as here. Do you realise just how racist such comments are?
86.17.222.157 (
talk) 20:10, 13 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Reply to IP comments I find nothing offensive about the nominator's reasoning this AFD. The question is not whether there is no education in Moldova but the problems with the article's content. If you have a problem with the nominator personally, please use the appropriate pages elsewhere on WP.
Mattg82 (
talk) 21:30, 13 January 2018 (UTC)reply
The nominator very clearly did raise the question of whether there is no education in Moldova.
86.17.222.157 (
talk) 08:37, 14 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Keep. Agree the article needs cleaning up, but the topic of education in a sovereign state is clearly notable.
Ajf773 (
talk) 22:35, 13 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Comment I have cleaned the article up to make it more presentable and removed the statistics which I think was the main problem. Hopefully someone with more knowledge can improve and expand it.
Mattg82 (
talk) 22:46, 13 January 2018 (UTC)reply
I've added a little info to the article. You ought to read the relevant policy concerning these matters that Andrew mentioned. You said that this subject had "no sources, no notability", though it would seem without checking
WP:BEFORE. I generally consider myself an
exclusionist, but I find your AfD campaigns to be counterproductive. If you are so bothered by all these poor articles, why don't you look for the sources and then add the relevant information to the article yourself? I think that would be a more constructive use of your time than nominating all these articles for deletion because they are low quality (not per policy or failure to meet
WP:GNG). -
Indy beetle (
talk) 03:13, 14 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Keep I am baffled to see "Education in (recognized country)" in AfD! Very soon we will start seeing the whole country themselves –
Ammarpad (
talk) 06:22, 14 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Keep - Even without cleanup, this subject is clearly suitable for the encyclopedia.
Smmurphy(
Talk) 19:08, 14 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Keep: Some of the footnotes could be also citing certain sources for the standpoint as well.
SA 13 Bro (
talk) 23:11, 14 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Keep. The nominator may be right that the
WP:TNT approach is indicated, but that is not an argument for deletion (in fact, it is an implicit argument against). --
Lambiam 22:10, 15 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Keep.
Andrew Davidson says it best. This topic is clearly important to cover and a bad article is better than nothing. There is no deadline.
ElAhrairahinspect damage⁄
berate 22:58, 17 January 2018 (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.
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.
Meandering mess with no central topic, no sources, no notability. If there is a topic here, then
WP:TNT and start over. This has been sitting to rot for over 10 years and no one will even so much as look at it. Ten Pound Hammer • (
What did I screw up now?) 18:52, 13 January 2018 (UTC)reply
"If there is a topic here"? Do you think that there might not be any education in Moldova? Maybe you class it as a
shithole country?
86.17.222.157 (
talk) 19:07, 13 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Keep The topic is clearly notable and
AfD is not cleanup.
WP:TNT is not policy; our actual
policy is that "Even poor articles, if they can be improved, are welcome.".
Andrew D. (
talk) 19:24, 13 January 2018 (UTC)reply
I've been racking my aging brains to try to remember where such an offensive statement was made in a deletion nomination statement before, and have just remembered that it was
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Theatre of Zambia, where it was claimed that there might be no theatre in Zambia, and it turns out that it was the same nominator as here. Do you realise just how racist such comments are?
86.17.222.157 (
talk) 20:10, 13 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Reply to IP comments I find nothing offensive about the nominator's reasoning this AFD. The question is not whether there is no education in Moldova but the problems with the article's content. If you have a problem with the nominator personally, please use the appropriate pages elsewhere on WP.
Mattg82 (
talk) 21:30, 13 January 2018 (UTC)reply
The nominator very clearly did raise the question of whether there is no education in Moldova.
86.17.222.157 (
talk) 08:37, 14 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Keep. Agree the article needs cleaning up, but the topic of education in a sovereign state is clearly notable.
Ajf773 (
talk) 22:35, 13 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Comment I have cleaned the article up to make it more presentable and removed the statistics which I think was the main problem. Hopefully someone with more knowledge can improve and expand it.
Mattg82 (
talk) 22:46, 13 January 2018 (UTC)reply
I've added a little info to the article. You ought to read the relevant policy concerning these matters that Andrew mentioned. You said that this subject had "no sources, no notability", though it would seem without checking
WP:BEFORE. I generally consider myself an
exclusionist, but I find your AfD campaigns to be counterproductive. If you are so bothered by all these poor articles, why don't you look for the sources and then add the relevant information to the article yourself? I think that would be a more constructive use of your time than nominating all these articles for deletion because they are low quality (not per policy or failure to meet
WP:GNG). -
Indy beetle (
talk) 03:13, 14 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Keep I am baffled to see "Education in (recognized country)" in AfD! Very soon we will start seeing the whole country themselves –
Ammarpad (
talk) 06:22, 14 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Keep - Even without cleanup, this subject is clearly suitable for the encyclopedia.
Smmurphy(
Talk) 19:08, 14 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Keep: Some of the footnotes could be also citing certain sources for the standpoint as well.
SA 13 Bro (
talk) 23:11, 14 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Keep. The nominator may be right that the
WP:TNT approach is indicated, but that is not an argument for deletion (in fact, it is an implicit argument against). --
Lambiam 22:10, 15 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Keep.
Andrew Davidson says it best. This topic is clearly important to cover and a bad article is better than nothing. There is no deadline.
ElAhrairahinspect damage⁄
berate 22:58, 17 January 2018 (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.