Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Open access in Vietnam

This discussion was subject to a deletion review on 2017 August 3.
For an explanation of the process, see Wikipedia:Deletion review.

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 delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:53, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

NB: Open access in Albania and Open access in Iceland were both tagged for deletion and linked to this debate, but not explicitly included in the list of nominated articles here. Since they closely follow the format of the other deleted articles of this type, and since they were properly tagged, I'm going to go ahead and delete them as well. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 13:59, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Open access in Vietnam

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

I came across these pages whilst new page reviewing. All of them seem to have been created by the same user over a span of a couple of days, which may explain why many of them appear to violate our policy of no original research. Many of them are unsourced which makes it difficult to verify their content and to assess their independent notability. I suggest that all the pages be deleted on these grounds with a warm invitation to Filippo Morsiani, the creator, to create a List of open access policies by country article, preferable through a draft.

Please also note the consensus gained on similar articles in deletion discussions here.

TL;DR: delete all per WP:NOR, WP:V and WP:N and invite creator to create a list encompassing all of them.

Note to closing admin: if the result is delete, please note that many of these have redirects to them on capitalisation grounds which also need deletion.

DrStrauss talk 13:27, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and WP:TNT. While this is absolutely a valid potential subject area for Wikipedia coverage, these are not the articles we're looking for. By and large they're unsourced (and/or sourced only to UNESCO's main open access project, if anywhere at all, rather than to media coverage), and strike a tone that falls somewhere between an essay and a how-to guide rather than being encyclopedically written and formatted. And the reason for both issues is that essentially they were copied and pasted from the UNESCO platform rather than being original Wikipedia content — but while WP:COPYVIO isn't an issue in this instance due to the free content nature of the UNESCO site, the lack of a copyvio problem still does not in and of itself exempt Wikipedia's copies from having to comply with our tone, structure and sourcing standards. Nominator is entirely correct that a more realistic approach would be to start with one base overview article, permitting by-country spinoffs as needed for the countries where we can source a sufficient volume of good content, rather than just jumping straight to a series of 80-100 articles generated by copy-pasting unencyclopedically formatted content from somewhere else. Bearcat (talk) 13:50, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete these seem to be copied from UNESCO (in a permittable way), but are not encyclopedic in their present form. Power~enwiki (talk) 19:53, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:13, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all per nom. I saw them roughly a month ago on new page patrol and PROD'ed what seemed to be the most egregiously unencyclopedic of them in the name of "picking my battles", but with the benefit of hindsight even the "better" ones are really not too great. Comments that this is an encyclopedic topic and one worth actually creating entries about are entirely correct, and I think with appropriate mentoring and oversight such articles could make for very worthwhile inclusions. These ain't they, though. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 23:55, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I should add that in Big Haz's user talk page archive we see the article creator appearing to accept deletion at User_talk:BigHaz/Archive_22#Open_access. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:59, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My impression at the time was that the article creator was accepting the deletion of the half-dozen or so I deleted a month ago, rather than of the entire project. But time will tell, of course. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 04:24, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all As per Bearcat $Brookie :) { - like the mist - there one moment and then gone!} (Whisper...)$ 14:34, 13 July 2017 (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.