Login
Login

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Child labour in the diamond industry

: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 keep. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:42, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

=[[Child labour in the diamond industry]]=

:{{la|Child labour in the diamond industry}} – (View AfD)(View log)

:({{findsources|Child labour in the diamond industry}})

Delete, while this is a sad condition that should be addressed as is this is a essay and borderline soapbox article. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 14:10, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

  • Keep and cleanup The fact that the current article reads like a soapbox essay doesn't negate the fact that there are a ton of sources in the article already, making the subject notable and therefore worthy of an article. The Seeker 4 Talk 14:16, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep and improve as creator, the current sources and various independent WP:RS is enough, article is still inuse, you may help improving it instead nominating for speedy deletions. Kasaalan (talk) 16:34, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep. The topic is backed up by reliable, third-party sources which cover it in significant detail. The article needs cleanup and copyediting, yes, but that isn't something for AfD. Ironholds (talk) 15:22, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep Cursory Google search shows plenty of reliable sources. Joshdboz (talk) 16:05, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

:while I still disagree about this article if prevailing opinion continues feel free to close.Hell In A Bucket (talk) 16:28, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

::I still improve the article, the conditions are undeniably bad though some advertising of boycott campaigns are disputed. If you are interested you may help improving the article. I have more scholar book links about conditions, yet it takes time to implement them, no reason to delete. Kasaalan (talk) 16:32, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

  • Keep and cleanup. No doubt the issue is notable, but the author must try his/her best to stay neutral and civil. Materialscientist (talk) 22:28, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

: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.