Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rhetorical strategies


 * 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   merge to Rhetoric. All !votes indicate that this should not be a stand alone article. Merge offered as a possibility and accepted by 3 editors. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:25, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Rhetorical strategies

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

No reliable sources. Tagged since March for original research and tone/style. Written as a how-to (e.g. "consider also the choice of words to use"). Appears to be a subtopic of rhetoric that would probably be better relegated to a section of that article. Some parts like the "Argumentation strategy" section might be mergeable, although it's based on a blog post. As a minor point, has some style issues that would require a lot of work to fix, like heavy overlinking. Dcoetzee 02:35, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2012 June 27.  Snotbot   t &bull; c &raquo;  18:46, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Oops I forgot. Sorry about that. Dcoetzee 20:58, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 19:57, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 19:57, 27 June 2012 (UTC)


 * It's possibly fixable, but right now it's a how-to guide. I am leaning to delete. Bearian (talk) 01:00, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Merge into Rhetoric which could use some input. Warden (talk) 12:25, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete - I wouldn't be opposed to a merge, but actually looking at the sources provided, and seeing the fact that the large majority of this article has no sources, there seems to be a large amount of Original Research and Synth going on here. If people think that this term could be a valid search term, I think it would be fine to keep as a redirect, but I would be hesitant to actually merge any of this information as long as its validity is questionable.  Rorshacma (talk) 18:09, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:47, 5 July 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.