Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/New England fundamentalism

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 06:26, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New England fundamentalism

New England fundamentalism (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

This article is complete rubbish. Googling on the phrase produces only utterly irrelevant mentions; googling for the supposed originator produces someone, but he has nothing to do with this either. Mangoe 19:01, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete Unsourced, unverifiable, and completely original research. -- ShinmaWa(talk) 19:11, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete as the nominator says, complete rubbish and blatant original research. Google doesn't find the phrase used anywhere except in relation to the Salem witch trials, which is completely irrelevant to the article. Unverifiable and not even sourced. Hut 8.5 19:28, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per obvious WP:OR and considering the tone WP:SOAPBOX. The author seems to have some sort of attitude about New England and decided to write it up on wikipedia presumably as "proof" of his or her theory. -Markeer 19:51, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete pointless gibberish. *Dan T.* 20:20, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete junk JuJube 01:47, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete A Google search for the noted scholar and the term he coined (typing "John Troxler" "New England fundamentalism" including the quotation marks into the search box) yielded one result, namely, this Wikipedia article. Not even noteworthy enough to get copied onto Wikipedia mirrors. Fg2 09:23, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Per all of the above --Richard 04:32, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete origional research--Sefringle 20:23, 3 May 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.