Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Criticism of Sylvia Browne


 * 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) 09:20, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Criticism of Sylvia Browne

 * ( [ 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) 01:00, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions.  —Ism schism (talk) 01:26, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Remark—Filling AfD with "Criticism of" articles could be considered disruptive and pointy. Please stop.  If you think all "criticism of" articles need to go, something like a RFC might be better than all these individual nominations.— S Marshall   Talk / Cont  01:28, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge into Sylvia Browne. This page fails to live up to the neutral standards that we employ and I suspect that any page with "criticism" in the title fails some aspect of WP:NPOV. There's good information here, but it should be placed in the context of a larger, balanced article on the topic rather than separated out. (And this is even more true for living persons.) JRP (talk) 01:30, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - The article appears well-sourced. If you see POV problems, then fix them. &mdash; LinguistAtLarge • Talk  01:34, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep, no clear deletion rationale given. WillOakland (talk) 01:36, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Per above. T-95 (talk) 01:51, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. No any rationale for deletion was provided by the nominator.Biophys (talk) 02:00, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Article is well-sourced, nothing inherently POV about the article. ScienceApe (talk) 02:09, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete  She is not important enough for a spinoff article.DGG (talk) 02:18, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete on principle, per S Marshall. This whole business of "criticism of" sections and articles actually endorses this whole idea that everyone has to have pros and cons, fairness and balance, etc. etc.
 * Merge to Sylvia Browne per Talk:Sylvia Browne. And possibly speedy-close this. - Eldereft (cont.) 03:30, 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.