Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roșia Montană Project
Source: 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 keep DavidLeighEllis (talk) 19:49, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Roșia Montană Project
- Roșia Montană Project (edit | 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 project is likely to be notable but the present article and all older versions have severe neutrality issues. Better to use
WP:TNT and start all over again. The Banner talk 21:16, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
- Speedy keep -- if you think the article is biased, fix the article, not delete it. If you find better sources than New York Times, Guardian, BBC, France 3, go ahead and add them. bogdan (talk) 21:31, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- It is biased from the first to the last version. Your edits did not make any bit less biased, you just swung the bias in another way. This article is just beyond rescue. The Banner talk 22:30, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep, and improve. The topic itself is undoubtedly notable; it is a huge commercial project with great significance for the Romanian environment and economy, and the subject of a big political controversy. It may yet the subject of a referenmdum.
A search of Gnews finds tons of Romanian-language sources, and there are also plenty of English-language sources, e.g. Spiegel International[1], BBC[2], Business Review[3], The Guardian[4]. So far we had a version which was very biased towards the company; then the edits by Bogdangiusca added a lot of valuable material from a different perspective. Bogdangiusca's work may have tilted the article too far the other way, but that's often the way things go as editors arrive to expand a topic and achieve a balance. The article clearly needs more work, but that is nothing unusual, and there is plemty to build on. Editors should improve the article ratherWP:TNT the work done already. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:25, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply] - Keep, political and economical relevance both in Romania and Hungary. --Norden1990 (talk) 11:58, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:47, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:47, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - It's a controversial project. What NPOV violations in the article are egrgious enough that deletion must be the answer? -- Whpq (talk) 16:43, 27 September 2013 (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.