Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Criticism to Fitna

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 speedy deleted by Martijn Hoekstra as a blatant copyright infringement (CSD G12). Non admin closure.Malcolmxl5 (talk) 16:49, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Criticism to Fitna

Criticism to Fitna (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

This is 100%, unsalvageable OR. I considered redirecting to Fitna (film), but it just isn't worth it. Also has no references. ukexpat (talk) 17:46, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

• Delete - it is an interesting read, sensible and well expressed, and worth publishing in the right forum; but it is a personal essay or original research, and Wikipedia is not a soapbox for opinion pieces on current affairs. JohnCD (talk) 17:48, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete If this were sourced, it could be merged into Fitna (or International reaction to Fitna), but it's OR. I rather suspect someone just needed a webhost for an essay. Anturiaethwr (talk) 18:10, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete: Article is clearly OR, also violates WP:NOT#SOAP, and has no references whatsoever. Steve Crossin (talk) (anon talk) 18:24, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - messy, WP:OR, no WP:RS, and WP:SOAP. No mergeable content. Bearian (talk) 19:36, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Unsalvagable original research soapboxery. DarkAudit (talk) 21:15, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - No sources, and violates WP:NOT#SOAP. Macy (Review me!) 23:56, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete and redirect to international reaction to Fitna. -Sean Curtin (talk) 00:45, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 13:57, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per others; looks like WP:SNOWBALL would apply here. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:55, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
• Snowball delete per all the reasons given above. Simply not an encyclopedia article.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 11:57, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete as original research. Note that a redirect would not really be appropriate since, being ungrammatical, this is an unlikely search term c.f. Criticism of Fitna. Sheffield Steel^talk_stalk 19:20, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete: Per WP:OR, fails WP:RS. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 11:48, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Not an encyclopedia article.Steve Dufour (talk) 05:59, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
• Speedy delete A copyright violation, see[1]. So tagged. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 14:58, 12 April 2008 (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.