Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Helicopter Parents
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 redirect. Please pull anything you wish to keep from the history of the article edits. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 20:24, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Helicopter Parents
Article reads like an essay and is at least problematic with regard to WP:NOT#SOAP and WP:OR. There is a proper article (Helicopter parent) which I suggest the salvagable parts be merged into. Seed 2.0 21:16, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
- Clarification. My vote is a tad bit ambiguous, as was helpfully pointed out to me by a fellow editor (thanks!). To make myself perfectly clear, I'm obviously in favor of deleting the article (hence, the whole AfD). So, in the interest of clarity, my position is to merge the little information that is salvagable and to delete the article. -- Seed 2.0 21:55, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete This is a mess and unsalvagable. The term could be transwikied, but this whole article needs to go. --Helm.ers 21:40, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
- Why not just merge what you want to merge and not involve AFD in the first place? Article merger does not involve deletion at any stage. Merger and deletion are mutually exclusive, because of the requirements of the GFDL. It would have taken fewer edits to merge the article than it has taken already to perform the AFD nomination. Uncle G 22:26, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
- Two reasons: policy and practicability. If I had just merged the very few useable parts, I still would have had to AfD this article . It certainly doesn't meet CSD G6 (or any of the other straight-up CSD criteria for that matter) and it does cite some sources. It just makes more sense to do it this way and, at least to me, appears to be the more sensible solution. -- Seed 2.0 23:06, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
- If I had just merged the very few useable parts, I still would have had to AfD this article — No you wouldn't. Once again, with emphasis: Article merger does not involve deletion at any stage. The last stage of a merger is a redirect. You could have had the usable parts in the main article and a redirect created, all by the process of normal editing, using tools that all editors have, and without need to involve AFD at all, by now. Uncle G 12:02, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
- Two reasons: policy and practicability. If I had just merged the very few useable parts, I still would have had to AfD this article . It certainly doesn't meet CSD G6 (or any of the other straight-up CSD criteria for that matter) and it does cite some sources. It just makes more sense to do it this way and, at least to me, appears to be the more sensible solution. -- Seed 2.0 23:06, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete, POV essay. --Dhartung | Talk 22:30, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete entirely written from a single point-of-view, numerous examples of rhetorical questions, unencyclopedic in scope, tone and content and superfluous as an encyclopaedic article on the same subject already exists. (aeropagitica) 23:24, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
- Very strong delete, bordering on speedy. Essay that could never be made into an article or merged with the existing one even in part. Probably copyvio too. Term has already been transwikied when I created the article. Absolutely no reason to have this. I would be invoking WP:SNOW at this point if I were an admin. Daniel Case 02:39, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
- I checked Google for replication of a unique phrase from the article and found nothing suspicious. I doubt it's a copyvio, reads more like an original essay. Caknuck 00:05, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
- Speedy close this is an incredibly straightforward and uncontroversial merge. AFD should have nothing to do with this. Just merge whatever's useful and redirect. --JayHenry 03:18, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete as there is nothing to merge, and we dont usually redirect from plurals to singular. DGG 05:28, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
- Please refresh your memory of Wikipedia:Naming conventions (plurals) and Wikipedia:Redirect#What do we use redirects for?. Uncle G 12:02, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
- Redirects are cheap, if there is nothing to merge. Smmurphy(Talk) 17:07, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
- Redirect to Helicopter parent. Not much here worth saving (just the sources, really). Caknuck 00:05, 11 April 2007 (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.
