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 merge to Bouygues. Spartaz Humbug! 20:20, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bouygues Controversy

[edit]
Bouygues Controversy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This appears to be a single-sided, inflammatory article created simply as the editor was unable to add this information to the article on the company itself. I *do* believe that, given the references, some of this information *could* be useful in the Bouygues page itself, however only if approached from a neutral standpoint. Nikthestoned 12:00, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — Nikthestoned 12:04, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. — Nikthestoned 12:05, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkmenistan-related deletion discussions. — —Tom Morris (talk) 13:50, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've already added a reference to the proliferation of turkmen contracts in the Bouygues article - that is clearly citable.
One part I think might/should be mentioned an am willing to add to the bouygues article is the bit about the http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/topic,4565c2252c,4565c25f389,4b87865ec,0.html - which comes from what I would consider a neutral source - however it needs further information to actually link it with bouygues work.
The main argument appears to be based on leaked diplomatic cables from USA diplomats - it would be important for someone to link to this, (and tell me/us if these are considered reliable).
The article appears to be conflating two issues -
Both seem to me to be possible articles, or article sections. Are there any wikiprojects that could help with this eg WikiProject:Human Rights ?
I really think that this is a Turkmenistan issue, and should be dealt with primarily on a suitable Turkenistan page. There is Human rights in Turkmenistan but I couldn't find a suitable place for corruption within Category:Corruption - Corruption in Turkmenistan is clearly a valid topic to cover, as is Foreign investment in Turkmenistan [1] [2] [3]. I just think it has been done wrong here.
Summary : merge somewhere / bring lack of proper coverage of topic to relevent editors attention
Imgaril (talk) 21:45, 26 July 2011 (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.
More