Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emotional abuse

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  23:07, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Emotional abuse

  • Delete - Seems generally copied from one of the sources, other seems to be original work, and finally, not notable. --Pichu0102 19:24, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - bad faith nom. AfD is not cleanup. PT (s-s-s-s) 21:09, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Nom was probably good faith in light of copyvio concerns, but I can't find where the majority of the article was copied. Does it need more verifiable sources? Yes. Does it need cleaned up and written in encyclopedic tone? Yes. Is it a topic worthy of inclusion in the Wikipedia? Yes—so cleanup is the solution, not deletion. —C.Fred (talk) 22:44, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep if sources are cited and WP:COPYVIO concerns are addressed. It seems notable to me, though. Allisonmontgomery69 23:12, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - People seem awfully free about throwing the charge "bad faith nom" around. If anyone's got facts on that, I'm willing to listen. In the meantime, I've got huge Original Research concerns, which would be answered if either the nom or writer would cough up sources, which would also clear up copyvio worries. I agree the afd process should not be cleanup, but it's unfortunately been my experience that it's often the only way to get the attention of the writer and/or other interested parties to get around to doing that. Tychocat 10:57, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Commnet - agree with above comment. This is especially true of PT (s-s-s-s) if you are a follower of these afd pages. Orangehead 14:36, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Your statement does not make sense to me, but any discussion about it does not belong here. If you have a question or comment for me, come visit my talk page. PT (s-s-s-s) 16:32, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. It's definitely encyclopedic, though I'd like to see the article include some sources. --Elonka 22:03, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
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.