" 

 :::EGeek, since you and I both agree with Greg, we seem to basically agree on what should be done, but disagree on how it should be done. See Immediatism on meta. 

 :::We both agree that the article is nonsense and should be changed, but you want to gradually improve it while I want to immediately improve it. 

 :::Your proposal 
 :::*We have each section be revised, one at a time. (Gradual approach) 

 :::My proposal 
 :::*We clear out nearly everything and, if anything needs to be put back in, we can do that. (Immediate approach) 

 :::Now I believe my proposal is consistent with the spirit of WP:IAR because your proposal was already tried once and failed. A long time ago, this article was proposed for deletion but kept up, based upon the assumption that the article would improve over time.  That never happened. Instead, reviewers haven't removed Karma's nonsense, but a great deal more nonsense, especially in the form of dubious citations, has been included. 

 :::So, being that this ""gradual improvement"" approach has already failed in this case, it would be shortsighted to propose it again, just so the article can continue to remain as is and continue to be edited by Karma's sockpuppets. This silly article has remained as is for long enough, I think it's long overdue for the immediate approach I propose. WP:IAR was basically created for this purpose.   "