Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Foreign Influence on US Presidential Election, 2012

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 Speedy delete (G10). If the author wishes to write in this area, I strongly suggest a userspace draft with good sourcing and adherence to NPOV. Also, repeated removal of maintenance/deletion tags without cause is greatly frowned upon Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 07:00, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Foreign Influence on US Presidential Election, 2012

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

Original research, no reliable sources. Could be an interesting article if supported by references, but is currently an op/ed piece. JNW (talk) 15:14, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 15:28, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 15:28, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I encourage you to let me finish this article before deleting it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Corinne.L.Clark (talk • contribs) 15:59, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd have been inclined to give this the benefit of the doubt if the article had a single claim that was supported by a reliable source, or had an introduction which established the exertion of foreign influence; as it stands it appears to be a WP:ESSAY. Generally an AfD discussion runs for a week, after which time an administrator makes a decision to keep or delete. That leaves ample time to add acceptable references and copy edit, and, of course, you can continue to work on it in userspace. JNW (talk) 20:22, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not only is this article original research, it is highly POV. TFD (talk) 21:50, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing of substance here. Plus we Canadians don't want anybody to know about our insidious, iron-fisted control of the U.S. Bwahahahaha. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:25, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete this WP:OR per WP:SOAPBOX. Qworty (talk) 23:12, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Snowball delete as a work of original research. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:05, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - I started to try to rescue this article by removing the original research, on;y to discover there'd be only a stub (and a POV-pushing one at that) once I finished. JoeSperrazza (talk) 04:10, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The contents of the article were copied to a sandbox at User:Corinne.L.Clark/sandbox. -- Dianna (talk) 04:23, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy d just removed copyright vio and BLP but have to go offline. Alanscottwalker (talk) 04:32, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Paranoid PoV rant based entirely on conspiracy theory OR bullspit. This should be speedied immediately. oknazevad (talk) 04:41, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:OR and WP:COATRACKing of what little sourcing there is to push a political WP:POV. He iro 04:42, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per WP:ATTACK. This article appears to be all about making negative associations between Obama and maligned foreign powers.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 04:58, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete for all of the reasons outlined above. WP:POV, WP:SOAPBOX, WP:OR, WP:SYN, WP:COATRACK... pick your alphabet soup and it's probably being ladled out here. --Kinu ^t/_c 05:03, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as POV-pushing bollocks... AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:13, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong, Speedy Delete This article is everything a Wikipedia article should not be. Gtwfan52 (talk) 05:18, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Unacceptable when I nominated it, and only got worse. Question: assuming eventual deletion, if this contains BLP and copyright violations, is it acceptable in the user's sandbox? JNW (talk) 05:26, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the Citizens United part seems to be a copyvio w/r/t the mother jones article. AgnosticAphid talk 05:29, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Almost verbatim copyandpaste with a minor an attempt at paraphrase, removed. See the fourth paragraph of this compared with my removal. He iro 05:50, 15 November 2012 (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.