Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Descriptions of the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons (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 redirect‎__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__ to Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy. Two relists, no one suggesting retention or providing further input. However this is a viable AtD given its origins. Star  Mississippi  02:40, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Descriptions of the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons
AfDs for this article:


 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Obviously a NOTINDISCRIMINATE vio Mach61 (talk) 01:39, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Comics and animation, Islam,  and Denmark.  WC  Quidditch   ☎   ✎  02:15, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗  plicit  02:26, 30 November 2023 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗  plicit  03:14, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete: This article could be marginally more useful if it contained information on what was offensive about the cartoons based on what RS say, but even then, I fail to see why what boils down to a caption needs its own article. Cortador (talk) 06:56, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Netscott in 2006 broke it out of Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy as a subtopic of an already lengthy main article. Uncle G (talk) 12:58, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
 * By the way, NOTINDISCRIMINATE cancels out, because of the double-negative, to DISCRIMINATE, acronym-speakers. Uncle G (talk) 13:04, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * 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.