Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Judicial hellhole

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 delete. - Mailer Diablo (talk) 12:29, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Judicial hellhole

Judicial hellhole (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Term was an uncontested prod for almost 3 months before being deprodded. Term is a perjorative dictionary definition only in use by the American Tort Reform Association, a partisan and biased group, and has little usage outside that group. Is an inherently POV term and the article likely cannot grow beyond a stub. Any new information would be duplicative of forum shopping, which this article is also an intended merge to. Also note that the original creater of the page had a huge Conflict of Interest, in that he is directly related to the ATRA, which coined and is attempting to spread the term. A google search excluding variations on ATRA, American Tort Reform Assn, etc. has less than 500 hits, nearly all reprints of articles and press releases from the ATRA. ⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 11:55, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete as nom. ⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 11:56, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, mostly per Swatjester's masterly exposition. (I question whether political allegiances fall within WP:COI, but that is a quibble.) - Smerdis of Tlön 16:01, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, as above. I also consider it to violation WP:NEO. Xymmax 16:45, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. When writing about a neologism, one has to assert how that term found its way out of the organization that coined it. Here, this quite simply did not happen. --Blanchardb-MeMyEarsMyMouth-timed 17:22, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete: Partisan neologism without evidence of independent notability. A WP:COATRACK in waiting. The COI issue is probably secondary, but otherwise agree with the nominator. MastCell Talk 19:21, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Coccyx Bloccyx 19:48, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per above, violates WP:5P and WP:POV especially. Bearian'sBooties 04:40, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Wikipedia is is not a dictionary, and certainly not a dictionary of loaded slang created solely as a rhetorical device by one partisan trade association. There is nothing in the stub, or in the concept, that warrants saving by merger, either. Finell (Talk) 06:36, 3 December 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.