Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The argentine experiment with a currency board
A very well written article, that makes me loathe to do this. But it's original research, an essay that speaks in the first person and draws conclusions, nonetheless. TellShow me that these are just artifacts and that it is possible to Cleanup this article. Uncle G 20:08, 2005 Jan 13 (UTC)
- Delete. This is an essay (or possibly someone's term paper) and thus is written to expound and defend a certain POV. Not really salvageable in whole or in part. This topic is already covered in Economy of Argentina and Argentine economic crisis (which could both use a fair bit of work). -- Curps 21:23, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Merge... somewhere, and delete. This is a horrible article title. The article itself is an academic essay, but well-written enough that there should be something of value to salvage for those other pages. Shimeru 22:06, Jan 13, 2005 (UTC)
- Submit to SSRN, then delete here. Merge if possible. Martg76 23:21, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. not notable, POV original research. Megan1967 00:49, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Comment: The original author appears to be in the process of attempting to make the article encyclopaedic. Uncle G 17:34, 2005 Jan 14 (UTC)
- Keep, cleanup and give it a better title. Wyss 22:15, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Keep the relevant bits and merge them where appropriate. Much of this article is actually NPOV (descriptive) and potentially useful. --Jpo 00:39, Jan 15, 2005 (UTC)
- Note further that the author has been working today to improve this article, and his user page seems to indicate a genuine interest in contributing (even if the original article does look more like a term paper). - Jpo 00:50, Jan 15, 2005 (UTC)
- Then why don't you communicate with him to let him understand Wikipedia's policies regarding original research and that we would appreciate his efforts on such articles as economy of Argentina rather than on this article which we're discussing deleting? —Lowellian (talk) 11:10, Jan 20, 2005 (UTC)
- Note further that the author has been working today to improve this article, and his user page seems to indicate a genuine interest in contributing (even if the original article does look more like a term paper). - Jpo 00:50, Jan 15, 2005 (UTC)
- Keep for now, although I would like to see the primary author commit to turning this into a normal Wikipedia article. If a normal article hasn't happened by, say, March 1, and this comes up for a vote again, I'd delete. -- Jmabel | Talk 00:59, Jan 15, 2005 (UTC)
- Uh, how about he just copies the article into his userspace and it gets deleted from here. Then he can take his time to get it right and recontribute it. It's going to need a new title anyway, and the existing poorly-chosen title won't be kept as a redirect, and the existing article history doesn't need to be retained if there's only one contributor. -- 64.228.83.224 03:58, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC) Hmmm, I hate when Wikipedia logs you out like that
- Delete, possibly merging useful paragrpahs. --70.17.37.64 04:07, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Original research. What Cusp said above. —Lowellian (talk) 11:08, Jan 20, 2005 (UTC)