Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rule 34


 * 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 Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. JForget 02:43, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Rule 34

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Permastub of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. None of the other rules have numbers; already sufficiently covered, so a merge is pointless.

What's more, this is attracting a large amount of vandalism in relation to the "rule 34" internet meme, which has been determined by both this afd and this AFD as being non-notable. By deleting this, we eliminate both an unnecessary permanent-stub and one of the biggest vandal-magnets outside the article on Goatse. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 15:12, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete It appears this rule can be adequately covered as part of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. If that isn't the case then a better name would be necessary for this article. Adambro (talk) 15:39, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete kill two birds with one stone, eh?  fetch  comms  ☛ 16:23, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Suggest a salting as well to prevent re-creation of memetic nonsense. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 16:51, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:54, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Redirect or merge (if anything useful) to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure as plausible search term. Indef prot the redirect if it needs it. -Atmoz (talk) 23:26, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete and salt. "Rule 34" is far too generic a term to redirect to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, or indeed anywhere else. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  04:53, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete and salt. We don't delete articles just because they get vandalized, but I don't see any benefit to keeping a stub for this specific rule. Since this deals with discovery, it's possible that some high-profile case will have a high-profile screw-up involving this rule, and if coverage begins to discuss it, or if some major court case or landmark decision changes it, then an article may be worthwhile. But that's an awfully unlikely caveat. As for the meme usage, someone somewhere is wondering how it will apply to this debate, and I weep softly for the future of the species. A WP:SALT is appropriate here. UltraExactZZ Said~ Did 15:40, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and sysop-protect the redirect page from editing, vandalism, and nonsense.  JBsupreme  ( talk ) 16:06, 8 March 2010 (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.