Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Petroleum politics

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. AFD is not clean up. If its notable but needs cleanup then unless TNT applies (which no-one suggests) it can wait its turn (or the heat death of universe) or some such. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:54, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Petroleum politics

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

Unfocused messy synthesis of political things that happen to be about petroleum. Reads more like an essay, large portions unsourced since 2009. If this is a notable topic, then WP:TNT is needed. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 16:12, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 16:19, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The subject needs to be covered, in my view. The article needs editing, not deleting. Unless Wikipedians feel the subject should be suppressed.Wetman (talk) 17:25, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - important geopolitical topic. Could the article be improved? Of course. But the nominator has greatly exaggerated the scope of issues: the majority of the article is sourced, it provides a satisfactory start to the major sub-topics, with hatnotes to main articles, and it's not an essay. What's there should be further improved, not deleted. Υπογράφω (talk) 03:12, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Υπογράφω: So are you going to fix it, or are you going to just let the article fester and rot forever? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 21:12, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:37, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Unfocused, vague nomination statement. The intersection of petroleum and politics in global world today needs no long explanation. The unsourced content can be removed but that's not reason for deletion. –Ammarpad (talk) 11:35, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Ammarpad: So are you going to fix it, or are you going to just let the article fester and rot forever? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 21:12, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:VOLUNTEER, I am under no obligation to improve it. All I know it is notable and has solid verfiable sources while you're only on deletion spree of clearly notable topics. Although you now promise to stop that. If you don't want see it "rot" SO FIX IT. Nobody stops you. –Ammarpad (talk) 23:20, 17 January 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.