Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/"Parliamentary hostage taking"


 * 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 -- JForget  23:09, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

"Parliamentary hostage taking"
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

This appears to be a non-notable theory comprised solely of original research. Ani Mate  00:48, 30 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete; the article has only been edited by two people (the creator and the nominator), and it does not cite any sources. GO-PCHS-NJROTC  (Messages) 00:52, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete, WP:OR, WP:RS, and WP:V.   Esradekan Gibb    "Talk" 01:22, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete, no sources. WillOakland (talk) 01:57, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Reads like a book report. Ecoleetage (talk) 03:06, 30 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete fails WP:OR, WP:V, WP:RS, verges on WP:CB ukexpat (talk) 14:40, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete, part of the article discusses valid parliamentary procedure concepts, but these are already covered in Dilatory motions and tactics and perhaps other articles. The phrase used in the title is unsourced and original research, in fact the article says the term is not used in Robert's Rules of Order and as far as I know it is not used anywhere.  Neutron (talk) 14:45, 30 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete What can I add? Per ukexpat, et al Pigman ☿ 21:51, 30 May 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.