Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Smart government

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. There is no need to denigrate contributors or subcontinents at AfD. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 01:06, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Smart government

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

Wikipedia is not a repository for essays. Believe it or not, not a copyright violation. I dream of horses (My talk page) (My edits) @ 19:32, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. I dream of horses (My talk page) (My edits) @ 19:32, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. I dream of horses (My talk page) (My edits) @ 19:32, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: These kind of articles created by Indian editors seem to pop up once or twice a day. This one is unique in that it sounds like a essay, rather than a advert. --★Gooseflesh12★ (talk) 19:35, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

delete this WP:ESSAY. Mangoe (talk) 20:13, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The nomination and contributions so far seem to be relying rather too much on a view that essays of any type have no place in Wikipedia mainspace. But WP:NOTESSAY does not talk about essays in general - it talks about personal essays, essays in which an editor puts forward their own unbacked personal opinion. In this case, when I do a GBooks search, I find quite a few sources (particularly ones over about four years old) which show only a verbal connection with the article subject - but I also find a number of recent sources that, at least at first sight, not only appear to be about this subject but to be usable sources for undercited parts of the article almost as they stand. On the whole, the article could do with a rewrite to make it more encyclopedic in style but does mostly seem to be presenting consensus (or at least common) positions on the subject. Having said that, I am not entirely convinced of the notability of the subject - it exists, seems to be getting written about to some extent, but also looks like something so totally of the moment that it could be completely forgotten in ten years. But we should be looking at that rather than the style in which the article is written. PWilkinson (talk) 00:15, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
delet Delet it, per above rational. 💵Money emoji💵^Talk 15:01, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Waddie96 (talk) 14:16, 24 March 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.