Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dorner Manifesto


 * 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 to Christopher Dorner. The history will remain intact incase anyone wants to merge anything. J04n(talk page) 12:30, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Dorner Manifesto

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

We already have articles on Dorner and the shootings themselves, the manifesto hardly needs a one-liner without references. This can easily be merged in with either the article on the shootings or on Dorner or both. Go  Phightins  !  01:49, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect. No need to AfD. Pburka (talk) 04:19, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Redirect only or delete. The Dorner article already has a better section on the "manifesto".--I am One of Many (talk) 06:55, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
 * keep there is much to be written. If merged, there will be constant warfare about too much detail.  This article has the potential to be greatly expanded.  Article quality is not a criteria for deletion.  Lack of notability Is.  The manifesto has been cited in many more places than many Wiki articles.Bamler2 (talk) 07:03, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Ted Kaczynski's unabomber manifesto is almost infinitely more notable and it is relegated to a section in his article, so I think there is more than enough room in the Dorner article to write about his manifesto.--I am One of Many (talk) 07:44, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Standard and valid wikipedia retort:other crap exist. Also, maybe nobody wanted to write a detailed unibomber manifesto article?  Also tell that to the many Obama subarticles which could easily be and are summarized in the Obama article? Bamler2 (talk) 14:58, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
 * OK, are you seriously comparing Dorner's notability to the President of the Unites States's? Ego White Tray (talk) 19:22, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I reference some of the Obama subarticles, not the main bio.
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:02, 21 February 2013 (UTC)<:Note:  This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:02, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:02, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
 * NEW INFORMATION..Awhile ago someone put in detailed manifesto info into the shootings article according to that talk page. It was removed  Therefore, there Needs to be this subarticle.


 * Redirect or delete - Not sure what will come from the manifesto but biased speculation about Dorner? ex: "cited commentary about the manifesto" What makes analyses of the manifesto notable?  Including photos of unrelated basketball players don't help the argument that the article should be kept.  Discussing "allegations regarding Dorner's termination proceedings" would be appropriate for inclusion in the article about Christopher Dorner.  Manifesto is discussed in Christoper Dorner article and in the 2013 Southern California shootings article. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 22:30, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

break

 * Delete - I suppose it could be redirected, but the articles Christopher Dorner and 2013 Southern California shootings may themselves be moved or renamed (discussion now ongoing). The manifesto is not currently worthy of an article of its own and it is actually covered better at the Dorner article than it is in this stub article. Any further comment can be added there, but IMO we should avoid giving this "document" any more attention than it deserves. If, as Bamler2 suggests, the manifesto section becomes too large for the main article (which I personally doubt will happen), it can be split off then. --MelanieN (talk) 17:43, 21 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Simply redirect. No independent notability. --Lambiam 12:34, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
 * full of notabity and citations but the article is written like crap. This is because nobody is going to improve it with a gun to their head, which is what an afd is.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bamler2 (talk • contribs) 21:50, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
 * On the contrary: improving an article during an AfD is the best way to save it. I have saved dozens of articles that I found at AfD and improved to the point where they were kept. Of course, if the subject is not notable or encyclopedic to begin with, no amount of rewriting will save it. --MelanieN (talk) 18:00, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
 * different approach, I see. please feel free to improve it. I will do so after it passes afd. otherwise hard work is wasted while others laugh at you.  — Preceding unsigned 2| (alk • contribs) 04:59, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

promise if kept, I promise to improve the article. If I don't't, I promise to pay a fine.Bamler2 (talk)
 * 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.