Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Obsessed person


 * 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 Obsessive-compulsive disorder. Espresso Addict 00:49, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Obsessed person

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

This reads strongly as original research, has no outside sources, duplicates much of the material in psych articles about OCD, etc, and while not a reason for deletion, is poorly formatted/spelling errors Mbisanz 08:51, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete I was about to nominate this myself. Looks like original research, the author has just written their personal opinions. The creator has written several similar articles (eg Chapped), mostly tagged for deletion as nonsense. Hut 8.5 09:01, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Obsessive-compulsive disorder as this is not an unlikely search result. The article is original research and largely incomprehensible otherwise - Peripitus (Talk) 13:10, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Redirect per Peripitus. ␄ –Iknowyourider (t c) 13:21, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Redirect per Peripitus per Peripitus per Peripitus per Peripitus per Peripitus per Peripitus per Peripitus per Peripitus per Peripitus per Peripitus per Peripitus per Peripitus per Peripitus per Peripitus per Peripitus per Peripitus per Peripitus per Peripitus per Peripitus per Peripitus per Peripitus per Peripitus per Peripitus per Peripitus . . . --Evb-wiki 13:26, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Redirect per the above, minus the attempts at humor. This could almost be speedied as nonsense, it's written so badly, but that's not quite correct, of course. Hers fold  (t/a/c) 15:52, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment @ written so badly- let's assume good faith. It looks like the person who wrote it wasn't trying to be funny, and was trying to contribute. -- Dom the dude 001 02:55, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not trying to say the person was a vandal, just stating that it really isn't written that well. If I considered it vandalism, or something in bad faith, I'd have recommended deletion, not redirection. Hers fold  (t/a/c) 04:57, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. I don't think a redirect is necessary. It doesn't seem like anyone would put "obsessed person" in the search box anyways. - Dom the dude 001 02:55, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah. It doesn't seem like anyone would write an article about it either. --Evb-wiki 03:53, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletions.   —Espresso Addict 23:07, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as original research. J I P  | Talk 04:32, 26 September 2007 (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.