Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Development Strategy Center (Uzbekistan)

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. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 04:30, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Development Strategy Center (Uzbekistan)

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Nominating for AfD as the result of a discussion here.

Article does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:ORGCRITE due to the non-independent nature of press in Uzbekistan vis-a-vis organizations affiliated with the government. The article is also written in a WP:PROMOTIONAL manner. Rosguill^talk 23:07, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Uzbekistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:26, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:26, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —AE (talk • contributions) 00:54, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kpg jhp jm 01:45, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A topic which would be notable in many countries but for which no reliable sources exist owing to the issues raised by Rosguil. Ultimately we're limited by sourcing and so despite some reluctance over the possibility of under-covering oppressive countries (especially those who do not use the Roman alphabet) I think this is a delete. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:19, 24 September 2018 (UTC) Pinged to this by this discussion[reply]
Delete Per nom, not enough independent sources for placement on the en.wiki, esp. with it being so new. Pinged to this by this discussion ^Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 02:22, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The article is a wholesale reproduction of the one existing on the Russian Wikipedia, which isn't immediately a problem if you don't count the sources provided, where one sees that the article falls short of meeting WP:ORGCRITE, with the only category possibly met with all the sources being "Significant coverage". But that coverage is not from independent sources, as it appears to be documents authored at sub-committee workshops and/or drafting sessions which existed when this group was being formed. I shouldn't engage in speculation but if Earwig's copyright detector worked with Cyrillic languages my guess is that its findings would not bode well for the article's originality (but that's just my opinion). I also agree that WP:NOTPROMO is being disregarded here, as well as WP:NOTJARGON, as the article is dominated with language used by policy wonks. Spintendo 03:07, 2 October 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.