Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/African Diamond Mines

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 userfy. AFD closed early per WP:SNOW. While there were many delete votes, userfying will leave the content available, yet out of the mainspace which is the main point of this AFD. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 05:02, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] African Diamond Mines

African Diamond Mines (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

Nothing more than another school essay User:Globalecon/Global Economics which duplicates much of the information at Blood diamond Diamond and Diamond (gemstone) LegoTech·(t)·(c) 14:21, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. This is an OR synthesis. PROD was removed by author with request not to delete or edit until after May 12, but being part of a class project (see WP:ANI#Use of Wikipedia for class project) does not exempt this from normal Wikipedia standards. Note to closing admin: if result is delete, consider userfying to preserve it till the project is over. JohnCD (talk) 14:39, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete, Wikipedia is not a free webhost. Nakon 15:02, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete, just a professor trying to use WP as a free webhost. Czolgolz (talk) 15:38, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete as this is synthesis / original research that duplicates material found in exisiting articles (as noted by nom). Nothing against class projects, but they do need to meet policy. (And I concur with JohnCD about the userfy). Bfigura (talk) 15:56, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Note to closing admin The author of the page attempted (incorrectly) to put an {{inuse}} tag on the article which was removed. I recommend that this AFD be stalled until the author of the page is finished with the revision(s) he/she is attempting to make to the page. Dusticomplain/compliment 16:13, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
  • No. That note was put there on all pages for this class in an attempt to draw out the deletion process. It's not being used in its intended purpose. Protonk (talk) 05:07, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom and above. Hut 8.5 16:41, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete per the above, recommend userfication to allow student to finish his/her project TRAVELLINGCARIMy storyTell me yours 17:12, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep This article has the potential to be a really good and interesting. Its a shame its not up to wikipedia's standards and the references are all messed up. Ijanderson977 (talk) 17:20, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment I think Travellingcari has a good suggestion. If it's not up to mainspace standards why not userfy. If it's userfied for a couple weeks it'd do no harm, and would show good faith to someone who may become a further contributor.--Cube lurker (talk) 18:04, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Userfy sounds entirely reasonable to me. It's not worth keeping at the moment, but if improved, it could be. Terraxos (talk) 00:43, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Userfy until it can be developed into an article deserving of inclusion in the encyclopedia. Enigma message 03:24, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete Would need a complete 100% rewrite to be even remotely acceptable, and the topic is already solidly covered in other articles (i.e. Blood diamond). Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:47, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete as illegitimate use of WP as free webhosting; Userfying was a lost option when the professor refused to listen. ThuranX (talk) 04:42, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete This is apart of a school project that is using Wikipeda as its personal web host. There's already an article about this topic and beside this is an essay anyhow. Next time, the professor should use WordPress, Blogger or LiveJournal, but Wikipedia is NOT a free web host Doc StrangeMailboxLogbook 14:45, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:21, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete duplicates existing articles, novel synthesis and original research, the few cited facts can be added back to other articles. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 18:17, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete, WP:COATRACK refers. Stifle (talk) 20:36, 30 April 2008 (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.