Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Countering Foreign Propaganda and Disinformation Act

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. Tone 13:50, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Countering Foreign Propaganda and Disinformation Act

[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)

Fails WP:G5 (article author is blocked sock of editor topic banned from editing articles containing political or religious biographical information, and the History section contains plenty of that) as there are no other contributions, except a couple of sentences. wumbolo ^^^ 15:55, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:G5 requires "no substantial edits by others". Substantial edits have been made by other editors, so WP:G5 does not apply. Bakazaka (talk) 21:37, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:24, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:24, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per Bakazaka. Seems like an appropriate article for Wikipedia. Yes, unfortunately seems was created by a sockpuppet but (at a glance) article content seems to withstood scrutiny of various editors so reasonable for it to stand, and its removal would almost seem like an act of censorship. Article removal (and no doubt reasonable) recreation would also risk copyright non attribution claims arising due to copies no doubt present on other sites.Djm-leighpark (talk) 08:37, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I would also reject G% as there have been several substantial edits by others. The content is fine, it's well sourced etc. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 13:31, 4 October 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.