Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Profession ban


 * 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. Tone 17:18, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Profession ban

 * – ( View AfD View log )

This article lacks enough sourced information to be dangerous. Its topic is probably misnamed, the prose is weak and unfocused, and the reader is left to wonder if the article has been vandalized or a computer glitch had randomly rearranged all the sentences. I am not sure if the topic has enough significance to include here, especially in its current state. I like to saw logs! (talk) 06:07, 9 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment &mdash; I personally do think the topic is of significance, although there is probably a more widespread term for it. I'd support redirecting this article if we could find another page that covers the same subject.  Master&amp;  Expert ( Talk ) 08:08, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment. I did find it under Berufsverbot, although that applies more to a profession ban under German law.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 08:47, 9 December 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79
 * , who is also, wrote on Talk:Berufsverbot about Berufsverbot, explaining that one "might as well call it profession ban in English". Xe is also the creator of sv:Yrkesförbud . Uncle G (talk) 00:34, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete I can't see this as a viable topic. Very vague and broad. Any law or practice? At any time in history? For any reason? Tigerboy1966 (talk) 11:22, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. This article fires a sawed-off shotgun and still doesn't manage to hit anything.  A redirect or possibly disambiguation page would be a possibility. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:33, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete I note that this appears to be a direct translation, which may explain some of the problems. It is not a usual term in English, and the confusion is evident when it says that profession ban may prevail even if a ban does not exist. What I think that the article is trying to say is that a person may be prohibited from exercising a profession or occupation by reason of a wide range of considerations such as lacking some necessary qualification which may be a test of competence but could be by virtue of gender, race or religion etc, by some express act of disqualification, not being registered when that is a requirement, that the bar may be explicit or implied, law or custom, and that these examples are not exclusive. Putting it that way demonstates that it is unlikely that we could have a satisfactory article even if we had a satisfactory title. --AJHingston (talk) 18:04, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment. I was able to read the Swedish article. It too seemed rather vague, and wandered around from licensing requirements to requirements that applicants for certain jobs belong to specific religious denominations. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 20:53, 9 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete. I initially assumed that it was a bad translation from one of the foreign Wikipedia articles, and may have made more sense in a foreign language or culture.  But based on the preceding comment by Smerdis of Tlön, I'd just delete on the basis of random meandering bollocks. --Legis (talk - contribs) 05:02, 11 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions.  — Frankie (talk) 21:37, 13 December 2011 (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.