Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Criticism of Noam Chomsky (2nd nomination)


 * 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 keep as pure disruption. (non-admin closure) Sceptre (talk) 09:21, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Criticism of Noam Chomsky
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Delete and userfy for creators and/or supporting editors, until all attack POV is removed, per BLP. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 00:26, 17 March 2009 (UTC) Ism schism (talk) 00:26, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions.  —Ism schism (talk) 00:32, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions.  —Ism schism (talk) 00:32, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep, no clear deletion rationale given. WillOakland (talk) 01:35, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep, as the other "criticism" articles in this list, this article would be a valid for a merge, but cannot be done so because of the size of the existing article. A better name might be appropriate to work through NPOV and BPL concerns. JRP (talk) 01:38, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. No any rationale for deletion was provided by the nominator.Biophys (talk) 02:03, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Criticizing Noam Chomsky? Who in their right mind would want to do that? OK, Merge--if there is criticism of Chomsky, it should be in the main article. I'd like to make a principled stand here also, but I'm a vox clamantis already. Whatever info in this article is worth keeping should be incorporated into respective sections in the main article, not in some separate "criticism" section, which just attracts flaming and soapboxing. (Sorry if you've heard this before.) (Sorry if you've heard that before.) Drmies (talk) 02:37, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep- Completely valid concept for an article. Needs to be sourced and NPOV, but thats a matter for editors, not deletion. Umbralcorax (talk) 02:50, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep Articles with the same concept are found abundantly, and the nom is very week. --Caspian blue 06:59, 17 March 2009 (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.