Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Model United Nations resolution


 * 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 delete per WP:NOT. ··· 日本穣 ? · 投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe ·  Join WP Japan ! 02:14, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Model United Nations resolution

 * – ( View AfD View log )

(PROD rejected) This is a set of instructions for participants in a portion of a Model United Nations meeting, a clear-cut violation of WP:NOT, and has no place here. Orange Mike &#x007C;  Talk  20:08, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose. This is a reasonable subject for an article; and needs to be cleaned up, not deleted. The author, a new editor, has asked for help with this. This deletion nomination was made after . Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:42, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
 * reply all I could do was tell the truth, which is that this is inherently not Wikipedia material; there was no bad faith involved. -- Orange Mike &#x007C;  Talk  22:39, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete WP:NOTHOWTO. I don't see a need for a separate article on a MUN resolution apart from the article Model United Nations. 76.65.128.132 (talk) 04:32, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose. For those who are trying to help: thank you for your support. I too don't think this is a set of instructions. Wikipedia does not accept: Instruction manuals (of objects etc., this article is about an educational conference), travel guide (obviously not), video game guides (X), internet guides (X), FAQs (X), texbooks (although the article seems as though it has been created to "instruct", in reality it "informs", because it provides information not only about the conference, but also about rules and procedures), case studies (X), scientific journals (X). Also, the article Model United Nations does not provide the necessary information for participants, for instance there is no information about what a resolution really is and how its supposed to be written. It is important to note the article addresses everyone and anyone who is interested, meaning it's not a instruction manual only for participants, anyone can "get informed" about MUN resolution thanks to the article. I think it's a must and it's needed. Once again, please try to help improve the article instead of insisting the article has to be deleted. A lot of effort was put into the article.--AsyaMariaIgmen (talk) 07:31, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment AsyaMariaIgmen is the original author of this article. 76.65.128.132 (talk) 13:27, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete — nothing here belongs on Wikipedia. Feel free to recreate if you believe that you can demonstrate the notability of the topic, but to get a reasonable article, you'd have to do a 100% rewrite: the intro isn't sourced and would need completely new writing, and the rest would need to be trashed because Wikipedia isn't a how-to manual.  Nyttend (talk) 14:20, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose ....... Although various people are claiming the article is "trash" and should be rewritten 100%, no one is pointing out WHY. "Wikipedia is not a how-to manual" is not a good enough answer, as I've repeatedly wrote (quoting from What "Wikipedia is not" article ) that this article is NOT a manual. The article is about the MUN Resolution and informs readers of what a resolution is and how it should be like. The article is not only about "Writing a MUN resolution", it's also about the "Adventure of the MUN Resolution" [] and provides important information for both students who will attend the MUN conferences, and people who just want to know more about MUN. Not having an article about the MUN resolution is like having an article on the Olympics but not on swimming, or figure skating. If you believe the article was written poorly, please say so without insisting the article is "trash". "While Wikipedia has descriptions of people, places and things, an article should not read like a 'how-to' style owners manual, advice column (legal, medical or otherwise) or suggestion box. This includes tutorials, walk-throughs, instruction manuals, game guides, and recipes (...)" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_a_manual.2C_guidebook.2C_textbook.2C_or_scientific_journal]] Now let's get back to the article: It is not a tutorial, not a walk-through (IT SIMPLY STATES WHAT A MUN RESOLUTION IS AND HOW IT USUALLY LOOKS LIKE/SHOULD LOOK LIKE), not an instruction manual (the article is not about how to USE a resolution, again it only supplies the reader with the necessary information before attending a MUN conference or simply provides EVERYTHING ANYONE would want to know about resolutions). AsyaMariaIgmen (talk) 17:06, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment you're not allowed to !vote twice. 76.65.128.132 (talk) 13:27, 31 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions.  — Frankie (talk) 23:59, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions.  — Frankie (talk) 23:59, 27 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Merge any salient high-level information (like maybe a paragraph or two about the basic structure of a resolution) to Model United Nations, and then redirect to the latter article. Much as I hate supporting deletion of material that someone has put a lot of effort into creating, Wikipedia really is not the place for most of this, in my opinion. As others have mentioned, it reads very much like an instruction manual or user guide, and I think it is a well-established principle that it's not Wikipedia's role to host such things. 86.181.202.9 (talk) 21:30, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete as per WP:NOTHOWTO. Any pertinent high-level info can be added to Model United Nations as per 86.181.202.9. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 16:32, 2 January 2012 (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.