Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Beheading in the name of Islam


 * 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. L Faraone  03:16, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Beheading in the name of Islam

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This is an essay, not an encyclopaedic article. It seems to be making a political point, not to be an article. It does not have WP:RS to back up its main theme, and seems to be WP:OR Martin 4 5 1  (talk) 22:14, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete If you re-read the title as Violent act in the cause of X it becomes apparent how pointless this article is. Gareth E Kegg (talk) 22:17, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
 * KEEP and improve Seriously, on the day of the 2013 Woolwich attack Wikipedia deletes an article about Beheading in the name of Islam? Seriously?Rembrandt Peale (talk) 22:24, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
 * SERIOUSLY, we will have to wait a week for the AfD to conclude, but this article was written on the same day of the 2013 Woolwich attack and the same day it was sent to AfD. Please supply a good reason for this article to be kept under wikipedia policy.Martin 4 5 1  (talk) 22:29, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:32, 22 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete. 'Seriously' is not an argument for retention. As it stands, the article reads like an essay, and lacks the necessary sources to establish that it is indeed an encyclopaedic subject. Do we have an article on Killing with car bombs in the name of Irish Nationalism, or Killing with laser-guided munitions in the name of Democracy for example? No, clearly not... AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:33, 22 May 2013 (UTC)


 * I agree that this article needs improvement. But inadequacy is an argument for improving an article, not for deleting it.  Note that before I was so rudely interrupted, I was in the process of adding academic sources to the article.  But while there is a serious academic discussion of the peculiar reasons why beheading resonates with Islamists,  the reasons why Wikipedia should have an article on this topic are, the Thalit massacre, the Murder of Ariel Sellouk, Daniel Pearl, Theo van Gogh (film director), Nick Berg, the Martyrs of Otranto...Rembrandt Peale (talk) 23:08, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Theo van Gogh was not beheaded. Nor was Ariel Sellouk. Neither were the victims of the Thalit massacre. Nor apparently were the Martyrs of Otranto, though given that this event took place in 1480, it might be hard to know for sure. And as of this moment, it is entirely unclear whether the Woolwich victim was beheaded either. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:44, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Keep and document further - Beheading is a common practice among radical Islamics and historically among the various Islamic groups, both quasi-state and state. If the American government has a pattern of waterboarding, then it should be documented. If Christians have a habit of burning witches, it should be reported. Let us not dumb down readers who are entitled to learn about Islam, good or bad. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.7.110.173 (talk) 01:14, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete. We don't have Burning in the name of Christianity, either. --Conti|✉ 23:36, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete - As above. Reeks of bias to me. -- Teh Cheezor Speak 00:08, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Um, have any of the contributors to this page done a good-faith search of this topic in journals or books? Just askin'Rembrandt Peale (talk) 01:42, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
 * No - I'd rather use what spare time I have contributing to an encyclopaedia. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:53, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
 * RP, could you confirm whether you are Historicist editing under a new account ? If so, please could you provide a link on your user page or talk page to the discussions with an admin that resulted in you being allowed to return under WP:STANDARDOFFER. It would obviously be inappropriate and inconsistent with policy for an editor blocked for recurrent sockpuppetry and topic-ban evasion to return and create an article. The article would need to be deleted which would make this AfD unnecessary. Thanks.  Sean.hoyland  - talk 07:42, 23 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep or Merge into the Beheading article. Adequately sourced and worth noting but perhaps only as part of the general topic. Jason from nyc (talk) 01:55, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete "in the name of X" articles are not something that will end well.Geni (talk) 03:20, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep and rename to beheading in Islam. Improve article and expand scope. Only the title was controversial. FunkMonk (talk) 05:04, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete as per Gareth and Conti above. Horrible and reactive page of questionable motivation. Nick Cooper (talk) 08:22, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete "in the name of Islam" suggests a desire to create a WP:COATRACK.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 09:08, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Again, if the name is the problem, change the name (as has already been done). The subject itself is notable. An article should not be deleted merely because of the title. FunkMonk (talk) 10:30, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
 * On any day other than today, I might agree. The problem is that nobody seems to be in a hurry to create Hanging and burning in Christianity (this was quite popular in Europe at one stage).-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 11:36, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, since that isn't practised anymore, I don't see how that analogy works. This subject is notable because it is official policy in several countries, as well as widespread in warfare (Syria, Iraq, etc.). FunkMonk (talk) 11:43, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Deleting an article because we feel subjectively uncomfortable with the name (or implication) of the title, is just as political as naming the title with the intention to incite untoward emotion in the reader in the first place. My colleague has it right, re-naming the title, is appropriate given both the temporal significance of the material and its range across nations.Evangelos Giakoumatos (talk) 02:25, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
 * It is not about the name, it is about the content of the article. This takes a global view, of all muslims, and links a particular form of killing to them. As such, it is SYN. Per the slate article, "Is there any significance to beheading in Islam? Yes, but it's important in other cultures, too." In addition, this article mixes together capital punishment by a state with acts of terror undertaken by individuals. If we had Capital punishment in Islamic nations, this could be an interesting survey article, and then if we had Means of death employed by terrorist groups, that could be another article, but this one as is is pure WP:SYN. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 18:12, 24 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment It seems the four of the above objections are based solely on the name. The name has been changed. Perhaps we can address the reliability of the sources and other matters for a stand-alone article. Jason from nyc (talk) 11:43, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
 * The title could be further changed to "beheading in Islamic countries" or some such, if people are still offended. FunkMonk (talk) 11:48, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Whichever way you slice it (pun intended) this article has WP:NPOV issues. There are plenty of articles looking at Islamic radicalism, Sharia etc without this recently created article which attempts to draw a sensationalist link between Islam and beheading.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 11:56, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
 * But it is not a controversial issue in itself. It is official policy in several Islamic countries. No one is trying to hide it, so why should we? It is a notable issue in itself, and there are plenty of reliable sources devoted to it, just not in this article. The article should be improved, rather than deleted. It is like Capital punishment in the United States, just with a religious twist. FunkMonk (talk) 12:14, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
 * No one is opposed to articles on Capital punishment in Iran, Capital punishment in Saudi Arabia etc. But this article implies that Muslim countries are more similar to each other than to non-Muslim countries. That is completely inaccurate. For example, Saudi Arabia punishes murder by beheading, but Pakistan punishes murder by hanging as the latter has inherited laws from the British Raj. In this respect, Pakistani capital punishment laws are more similar to India than Saudi Arabia.


 * Merge. We have an article on Decapitation, so why not just merge the information there. Paul MacDermott (talk) 12:15, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Redirect this article to Beheading/Decapitation and merge relevant content there. The phenomenon of beheading in Muslim countries is already covered (and can be covered further) at Decapitation and Decapitation. Notable individuals beheaded by Muslims (e.g. Daniel Pearl) are already covered at List of people who were beheaded.
 * I suspect that one reason this article was created was as criticism of Islam. One of the sources used in the article says "[Islam is] a religion of the sword with the blade forever at the throat of the unbeliever". If that was the intention, then this is forking from Criticism of Islam and should be moved there.Bless sins (talk) 13:37, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
 * MERGE per Paul MacDermott. Some content here can be useful on that page in a sectionbLihaas (talk) 13:48, 23 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Merge and redirect to existing article, as above. This article is not neutral, created by an editor who has a clear anti-Islam agenda. GiantSnowman 14:07, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete as a needless WP:POVFORK of decapitation -- Y not? 14:45, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete. I find the idea of needing to give a rationale for something so obvious demeaning to Wikipedia, so I won't. Formerip (talk) 19:17, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete Per SYN, POV/Fork and FormerIP People who commit crimes in "the name of," should start with themselves. Malke 2010 (talk) 04:10, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete per User:Y Ripberger (talk) 08:10, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
 * delete SYN and POV and a FORK of existing content. Also, agree with other points above - we don't want to encourage this kind of article, as Killing with laser-guided munitions in the name of Democracy is next, and could be easily sourced.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:15, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete as per Obi-Wan Kenobi, cultural and religious attitudes to violence are a legitimate subject for an article, however I'm struggling to see how this article can result in anything but a one-sided analysis of the topic. --Salimfadhley (talk) 17:22, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NOTESSAY. The lead makes it very clear that the article's creator is writing their own take on a topic of discussion, and merely collecting sources to give the impression of a "well-sourced" article. Which technically is also a violation of WP:ORIGINALSYN. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:46, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete unless or until we have an article "Killing of children by drone strikes in the name of the War on Terror". Which, incidentally, I am not proposing. Brocach (talk) 19:28, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
 * We have something close: Drone attacks in Pakistan from which I extracted and created List of drone strikes in Pakistan. The author has long changed the name but oddly most are commenting on the original name. Very few comment on the quality of the sources. Interesting. Jason from nyc (talk) 19:47, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I know, but my point is that neither of the Pakistan titles link drone attacks to the religion of the attackers, nor to the nature of the injuries inflicted. We don't have other article titles constructed on "[gross violation of human rights]" + "[supposed motivation]", e.g. "torture in the name of securing intelligence" or "kidnapping and locking people up without charge or trial for many years in the name of just because we can". It seems very likely that this article has been created to draw attention to decapitation as a supposedly "Islamic" phenomenon, as though no US drone attack ever decapitated anyone. It is inappropriate for an encyclopaedia to use different terminology for terrorist attacks or other human rights violations depending on whether they are inflicted by, or against, particular interests. Brocach (talk) 20:54, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
 * We do have "Capital punishment in the United States" and "Racism in the United States" without specifically implying that it is unique to the United States. The new name "Beheading in Islam" focuses on the practice within the 1400 year practice of this religion. I lean towards merge into Decapitation as I generally favor passing the material through the current editors on the topic and if it get too large for a section, only then extract it into a new article (like I extracted the list from the Drone article). I think that's a more organic way of development but I'm not a bold editor. But the main question: is it the name that's the problem? Jason from nyc (talk) 21:04, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, because it is both a coat-rack and SYN. By focusing "on the practice within the 1400 year practice of this religion", you are suggesting that there is some encyclopedic connection that can be drawn between the killings of Daniel Perl and the slaughter of Crusaders by a Muslim leader over 1,000 years ago, and that the connection is somehow religion?? You realize that the cartels in Mexico also have a nasty habit of chopping people's heads off, and those acts are probably more inspired/related to what terrorists are doing today than what happened 1400 years ago? (and I don't think those cartels are ISLAMIC). Same thing with suicide bombs - our friends the Tamil tigers were innovators in this domain, and they aren't muslim - innovation in nasty ways to kill people knows no religious boundaries...


 * As I noted above, beheading has been done by people of the Islamic faith for at least 1400 years. Guess what? Beheading has been done by people of the Christian faith, as well, in fact the best beheading machine ever made was probably invented by a French Catholic. If you check out the media on beheading in commons, you will see African kings, Indian princes, Japanese soldiers, Chinese emperors, and basically all *other* manner of people chopping others heads off. The neutral way to treat this subject is within the Decapitation article, and then splitting it out by time period or geographic area as necessary if that article grows.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 00:47, 26 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Merge and redirect WP:POVFORK of decapitation by non-neutral creator from anti-islamic POV Widefox ; talk 18:58, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment: while this discussion was ongoing, with a clearly emerging consensus in favour of deletion, it was renamed in an attempt to reduce its offensiveness. That is improper and I have moved it back. The article should remain at its original title unless or until this discussion ends with consensus to keep, delete, rename or merge. Brocach (talk) 19:14, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment: Actually WP:EDITATAFD allows the article to be moved but stipulates that notice should be given on this page at the top and bottom. As it is there has been a great deal of confusion as many who voted for deletion appeared to do so based on the name only (as they hadn't read the article and noticed that the name was changed.) I tried to point this out several times above (but some don't show signs of reading the other entries.) Jason from nyc (talk) 20:47, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I see little evidence that delete !votes have been based on the name alone - instead it is the partisan/essay-like subject that is the problem. No matter how you name it, the article is trying to make out a case that there is something noteworthy concerning the intersection of 'beheading' and 'Islam', by resorting to a dubious synthesis between historical state practices and contemporary terrorist acts. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:55, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I appreciate that you and several other have important and serious reservations. But some just seem not to have gotten past the original name. I know when I prompted “Brocach ” to move beyond the name he gave substantial reasons. This is how a serious discussion reaches a consensus as we both have some agreement with a preference for starting this topic as part of the Decapitation page. Seeing that Wikipedia isn’t “a democracy” but works best when we’re engaged in trying to get as best a consensus as possible, it’s unfortunate that we have several “hit and runs” that just comment on the name. Perhaps we can separate the name-objectors to the content-objectors. What do you think? Jason from nyc (talk) 21:14, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
 * To separate the discussion on name from that on content, the article should stay in this one place; it is open to anyone to propose a change of name as "the solution", though I for one won't be buying in. Brocach (talk) 23:42, 26 May 2013 (UTC)


 * An obvious PoV fork, as was said above. No such topic, AFAIK. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 05:23, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete - POV fork leading to Burning in the name of Christianity, Crucifixions in the name of Paganism, Hellfire missiling in the name of American imperialism, etc. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:52, 27 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment. There is no question that the subject is encyclopaedic, given the focus on it in media and the religious text references, as well as in books such as this one.  But no harm will come from mentioning it instead in the beheading article -- it belongs in one or the other, but either works.   And the articles that it should be improved are not relevant -- we focus on the topic and whether it can be written about appropriately, not whether it can be improved or in the eyes of some should be improved ... as long as it can be improved if need be to the proper level, which is an issue of RSs and notability of the topic.  Epeefleche (talk) 01:40, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
 * read on in that book, and you'll find the following: "Let us acknowledge that beheading criminals with a sword or axe was a common pratice by all ancient civilizations for thousands of years. in fact, beheading was widely used in Europe, Asia and Africa (by Muslims and non-Muslims alike) until the very early twentieth century, and only recently has the entire civilized world abandoned this ancient cruel practice of capital punishment. Today, however, this barbaric ancient practice sitll exists only in the Muslim world." So, further evidence that this is POV fork of Decapitation. I note that the so-called "civilized" french only abandoned the guillotine in 1977. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 01:52, 28 May 2013 (UTC)


 * There is a specific reference or two to it in the Koran, and of course it relates to hudud within sharia law, so there are encyclopaedic elements that are appropriate to cover in some fashion. And are even just with regard to hudud, there are many scholarly publications (see also these scholarly articles) dealing variously with punishment and with sharia law that discuss beheading in Islam.  But that is not to say by any means that it is the only religion or society or movement that has engaged in the practice or that have texts which, if taken literally, support the practice.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:57, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
 * So, an article on Crime and Punishment in Sharia as split off from Sharia would be acceptable, discussing different forms of execution and punishment permitted under sharia law. This one, not so much - it's sensationalistic. I just looked at the list of "last" executions - France, Germany, Switzerland, their last execution, EVER, was a beheading - for all three of those countries! They still aren't chopping heads off because they abolished capital punishment - but if they restored capital punishment, who's to say they wouldn't start again? --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 03:16, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
 * There are many ways that this can be covered. That's one.  And -- even if it is historical rather than current -- it is also encyclopaedic to cover what you point to.  The suggestion by some above that the subject matter is not encyclopadic is belied by the scholarly and RS coverage.  As to whether it is covered in a stand-alone or in one other article or a number of them, is a less significant matter I think.  But the point I want to make is the above, and I think any delete !votes based on that bald assertion are misplaced.  the same goes for delete !votes comparing it to other killings that are not based on something analagous to the Koran ... here we have a literal translation by some people and application by them of the Koran ... it is obviously not at all analagous to some of the poor counter-examples given above (e.g., two editors !voted on the basis that it was the same as " Killing with laser-guided munitions in the name of Democracy" -- it's clearly not, for the aforesaid reason, and thus that's not an appropriate basis for deletion ... far from it ... and one of those editors admitted not doing a search to see the extensive coverage of the topic, so would have missed the fact that it is covered thusly in scholarly literature and RSs).--Epeefleche (talk) 03:32, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Here's a better start, already done for Judaism Capital_punishment_in_Judaism. They have a nice diversity - one can choose between stoning, strangulation, beheading, or burning. Which one of those is the most barbarous? You could for example, create Beheading and religion, that did a survey of how different religious texts viewed beheading. But just having one article, just about Islam, is going too far...--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 04:12, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
 * You could address this in many ways appropriately. It is all encyclopaedic content -- though of course some people will be more interested in actions taken in 2013 than in historical actions.  I've pointed out where I think delete !votes were grounded on baseless assertions.  But one could have: a) (if there is enough material) stand-alones, and one could have discussion of such things in articles in b) the religion in question, or the religious law in question, or the action in question, or the crime in question, for example.  Or all of those.  As to your comment that "having one article, just about Islam, is going too far" ... that's not how we work.  You can write articles about practices in other religions or groups or civilizations -- but we don't delete an article just because only one has been written ... one must always start with one, somewhere.  Just as we have many "Abortion in ..." articles ... the thought that we would delete the very first one written, because the second and third and fourth and fifth had yet to be written, would be a hollow argument.  Even if abortion is an emotional subject -- it is an encyclopaedic one, and with a number of such articles, one always starts somewhere, with the first.  So it is here.--Epeefleche (talk) 15:32, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
 * True, but in this case, encyclopedic and neutral coverage of the topic would deem that you look at the question of how religion intersects with capital punishment, and we already have an article on that: Religion and capital punishment. One could also write an article on the question of Sharia and capital punishment, similar to what has been done with Judaism. That's fine too. But focusing on beheading is WP:UNDUE and violates NPOV, and is SYN/Coatrack/etc etc. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:09, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
 * No -- that's flatly wrong. Just as it was not the case with the first "Abortion in ... " article.  Not undue -- especially given that it is 1) a current practice, and 2) in accord with a strict reading of the main text of the religion.  Not NPOV -- any more than any "abortion in" article -- though I imagine we would have POV editors attracted to discussions of deletions of those articles as well.  And not coatrack -- there are scholarly texts and writings devoted to the subject.  We don't just toss out innapplicable guidelines, and say they apply -- they have to apply in fact.  Which they don't, here.  Just as the "abortion in" articles are encyclopedic, so is this -- how it is reflected is a secondary issue, but !votes suggesting that it is not encyclopedic, including by editors who have not researched the issue of RS coverage, are deeply flawed.  As are those comparing it to "missles used to kill for democracy," where there is no underlying seminal document that sanctions it, as is the case here.--Epeefleche (talk) 16:21, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
 * No underlying seminal document? How about this one: ? Also, what exactly do you mean by "current practice"? By my count there are a few majority-muslim nations that use beheading as their form of execution. There are others which use different forms of execution. There are also lots of jihadists whose preferred method of death is bullets or bombs. There are a *few*, sensationalized cases, where people are beheaded instead - but these are much more rare, if you look at body counts, than regular old bombs and bullets. That's what makes this POV and UNDUE, as it's making a big deal out of something which is not that common. Again, Capital punishment in Islamic countries or Sharia law and capital punishment would be useful, encyclopedic and neutral articles. Not this one.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 17:38, 28 May 2013 (UTC)


 * comment - many of the comments on this page make assertions that seem to reveal that they have not read the page as it now stands, and are not familiar with discussions of decapitation in Islam.Rembrandt Peale (talk) 14:26, 28 May 2013 (UTC)


 * comment - I did look at the beheading article before I started this page, and now again after reading this discussion. Moving this material to beheading seems incorrect to me on two gorunds.  One is that beheading is already enormous to the point of unwieldiness.   More importantly, however, the great difference is that the material on that page are of merely historical interest.   In Islam, by contrast, beheading is actively practices.  Moreover, it is actively practiced and advocated by individuals and groups with a well-articulated argument that the ideology of Islam specifically mandates decapitation as a preferred means of execution.  It is this ideology of beheading in contemporary Islam thatRembrandt Peale (talk) 14:27, 28 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment: Obiwankenobi is right. Going with Capital punishment in Islamic countries or Sharia law and capital punishment would be far more useful to the reader, encyclopedic and neutral. Not this one. Malke 2010 (talk) 18:58, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
 * So far, most arguments in favour of deletion amount to "I don't like it", "I don't like the name", or "I don't like the context". These are all irrelevant arguments, and should be dismissed. If the title is offensive, change it, if the article is badly written, rewrite it, and if you simply don't like it, don't comment here. FunkMonk (talk) 00:16, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately this Project Page is now resembling a vitriolic message board, where the politically correct "check-in" to scold others about POV, "neutrality", encyclopedic content, etc. The decision by Brocach to undo the switch to the clearly less controversial title "Beheading in Islam", and back to its original title has precipitated further grumbling disguised as debate.  To all editors, choose your instrument, and improve the article consistent with the spirit of Wikipedia.Evangelos Giakoumatos (talk) 02:33, 29 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Merge into either Beheading or Religion and Capital Punishment. Every part of the current article is disturbingly NPOV, even the name.  It is not clear why beheading in Islam deserves an article separate from capital punishment in Islam; the easiest way to solve both NPOV and notability problems is to merge it.  Marechal Ney (talk) 02:51, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Note - has been blocked as a sock of .  nableezy  - 05:09, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete - As per WP:NOTESSAY & WP:ORIGINALSYN. --JetBlast (talk) 19:21, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment. Obviously the sock's !vote should be ignored in the close of this discussion. As to Nab crossing out each comment -- when I did the same in the past, I was told that that was not appropriate.  And that what I should do instead is leave a note after each such comment.  And I have conformed my behavior in similar instances in the years since.  I don't care either way overly -- as I said, I initially did what Nab has done.  But would appreciate comment as to whether the cross-outs of the comments here is an acceptable approach ... if so, I will happily revert to the practice.  If not, perhaps we should have the cross-outs changed above to notes below each such comment.  Thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:37, 29 May 2013 (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.