Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Petrodollar recycling

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. CDC (talk) 22:18, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

Petrodollar recycling

This is a personal, PoV essay. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:08, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. The topic is notable. Just improve it, not delete it. Cut it down into a substub if you must to eliminate the POV. -- Natalinasmpf 21:09, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. The topic is definitely worthy of an entry, but the current one contains unsupported assertions and value judgements that are not relevant to the definition of petrodollar recycling. 65.248.243.100 (talk · contribs)
• Comment: I think this should be stubified at least, but I'm surprised we can't redirect it somewhere. Don't we as yet have anything on this? Good topic if not! No vote as yet. Andrewa 21:37, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and Rewrite to a substub. Zzyzx11 | Talk 21:41, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Visit Wikipedia:Deletion policy and pay attention to the bit about articles needing attention. Or you could of course just fix it. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 22:56, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Substubs are generally considered harmful. Keep. The re-write actually explains what its subject is. --Carnildo 23:18, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Comment Would vote delete if not improved. Would vote to keep decent stub Capitalistroadster 00:28, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Have rewritten this article. Important economic topic relating to the 1970s oil crisis and the world economy. Capitalistroadster 01:55, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Keep. Good rewrite. Andrewa 03:06, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Wikipedia is not Jenga. Stop trying to pull out perfectly good articles. Klonimus 03:49, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Important topic. Rewritten article is good. Should fix the busted external links. Quale 04:31, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep; the rewrite, and the comments of those voters not concerned with making snide remarks but with improving Wikipedia, have convinced me that I was over-hasty. (The advantage of the VfD here seems to have been that a bad article became a good article, so I'm not too remorseful.) Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 08:17, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • No need for any remorse. The original article was poor, and from what little was there it wasn't clear that the topic could be salvaged. Your action led directly to the current good article. Thanks. Quale 23:21, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.