Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Iraqi Air Defence Command

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 draftify. If it is cleaned up in short order, it can be restored to mainspace in short order. BD2412 T 05:41, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Iraqi Air Defence Command

[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)

Apparently machine translated article from Arabic. Significant details are being lost in the translation. For instance, Bofors 40 mm L/60 gun becomes "Boovers" in this translation. Parts of the article are completely not understandable because sentences run on forever with no punctuation. Better to nuke it and start again. Schierbecker (talk) 05:59, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - usually I would just vote keep because AFD is not cleanup, but you seem to specialise in writing these articles so I will hit you up for an elaboration please? Just because the article was not well translated does not lend to an argument for deletion in my view. I am not seeing grounds for TNT. Are there no reliable sources for this? If so, then removing poor quality content seems a better option than deletion.

MaxnaCarta (talk) 07:02, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep per WP:PRESERVE. The article is only eight days old, so it is not like it has stayed for years in this sorry state. The subject is not really covered in the Iraqi Air Force article either, and there is a lot of stuff to be said on the subject; reliable sources do exist. Alternatively, moving it to draft space might be a good compromise. BilletsMauves^€500 18:12, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and Iraq. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:51, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify: I think draftification is a good ATD that keeps both the nominator's and BilletsMauves concerns in mind; not outright nuking the article, but pulling it out of mainspace. Curbon7 (talk) 19:25, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify poorly written/translated and minimally referenced, but subject seems worthy of a page and may be able to be turned into something useful. Mztourist (talk) 03:58, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The way to get an article turned into something useful is to leave it in main space where it can be found by potential editors, not to hide it away in draft space where it will be automatically deleted after six months. That's the whole point of a wiki. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:44, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If someone is interested in the topic they will probably go and improve it pursuant to this AFD, if not then it can be deleted. Mztourist (talk) 08:45, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Poor article, but clearly a notable subject. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:21, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:05, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify needs a clean up, badly. Oaktree b (talk) 12:57, 19 September 2022 (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.