Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of international adoption scandals


 * 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   KEEP Consensus was this is not synthesis or OR and is a proper list per WP:List  Mike Cline (talk) 20:24, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

List of international adoption scandals

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Nominating on behalf of Dragonflysixtyseven, who says he has lost the habit of starting AFDs. Seems to be an examplefarm, laden with OR and synthesis. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 21:44, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:04, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:05, 2 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep. Everything seems to be referenced, and I'm not seeing any OR.  An important aspect of adoption that should be covered here. Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 09:59, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * It just seems like so much...synthesis, is the thing. It bothers me. DS (talk) 14:09, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not seeing synthesis. There are international adoption scandals.  This is a list of some of them.  They all seem to be referenced.  Just like lots of similar lists on WP, such as List of events named massacres, List of murderers by number of victims, etc.  That's not to say the article couldn't be improved, of course. Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 17:53, 2 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep Certainly a notable subject that an encyclopedia user would refer to, and well sourced, with context. To the extent that it seems like synthesis, those objections can be fixed. Mandsford (talk) 18:29, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Looks like a good list to me. Well referenced and informative.Tobit2 (talk) 13:29, 3 March 2010 (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.