Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Religious Texts Banned From Some Schools in the Davis School District in Utah


 * 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__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. RL0919 (talk) 19:33, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Religious Texts Banned From Some Schools in the Davis School District in Utah

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Non-notable local issue. Could perhaps be a redirect to a discussion of books in the USA or similar. Oaktree b (talk) 14:56, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools, Religion,  and Utah. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:02, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete This fails WP:GNG and (in my opinion) also has a waft of WP:SOAPBOX to it. --TheInsatiableOne (talk) 16:04, 9 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Delete per others' reasoning. Really only notable in the larger context of censorship of books in the US, so if there was a "2023 book censorship in the US" article this could be included there.
 * ForsythiaJo (talk) 16:39, 9 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Delete. The title of this one gave me a laugh, could arguably be considered WP:NOTNEWS, but definitely fails the WP:GNG ULPS (talk) 20:07, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment No, it's not NOTNEWS, and not even arguably so; do read that policy thoroughly because like may policies referenced with a WP:VAGUEWAVE, what people think it says often differs markedly from what it actually says. I agree that this issue probably should not be covered at this level of granularity, but am sure that in due course it will become evident how to handle this and similar issues as a cohesive whole. Jclemens (talk) 20:29, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete - At this point, all sources are primary news accounts. IMO, that makes it NOTNEWS#2, but in any case it means it fails GNG for lacking secondary sources. I agree with the others that we should have an article titled perhaps 2023 censorship controversy in the United States and this should be part of it. 69.92.163.38 (talk) 15:24, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Yeah, this was my reasoning for saying it could be considered it. Obviously it would be a stretch and I wouldn't !vote delete based on that alone (Which is why I did not). ULPS (talk) 14:59, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete. This information certainly could be part of another article, but it doesn't need to be a standalone article. I could support a redirect, but the title doesn't really lend itself to that.Jacona (talk) 18:35, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete. Only two items, hardly notable enough for a standalone list. Wikipedia is not the news. Ajf773 (talk) 11:15, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 02:03, 15 June 2023 (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.