Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spoon feeding

 This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. Woohookitty 08:16, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Spoon feeding

 * Delete. Hard to understand, misleading title, and at best redundant with NPOV.  Style and how-to articles represent all of Wikipedia, and need to be held to high standards of clarity and purpose.  Although the creator keeps adding to it, there's no substance to base it on. --A D Monroe III 4 July 2005 23:31 (UTC)
 * Keep--kizzle July 4, 2005 23:40 (UTC)
 * I was willing to discuss some sort of merger between this article and NPOV (as seen on Wikipedia_talk:Spoon_feeding) however Monroe wishes to remove this article before we even discuss such an option. If this article fits cleanly within a subdivision of the NPOV article, then I would be honored to include it in the main NPOV guideline.  I have asked Monroe to join me in discussion on Talk for such a merger, however it seems that he is content simply to file a VfD.--kizzle July 4, 2005 23:40 (UTC)
 * Four other users have used this article in helping reach concencus on pages of which I am not involved with nor do I have contact with the editors.--kizzle July 4, 2005 23:40 (UTC)
 * Actually, as can be seen on Wikipedia_talk:Spoon_feeding, kizzle and I have been discussing this article endlessly, to no avail. People can't seem to even understand what the article is about, even after all this.  --A D Monroe III 6 July 2005 03:08 (UTC)
 * If you look on the talk page, the last comment is me requesting more information from you to help either clean up or merge before posting a VfD. You completely ignored my request.  That's what I mean by lack of discussion. --kizzle July 6, 2005 03:21 (UTC)


 * Merge a synopsis to Neutral point of view. Double Blue  (Talk) 5 July 2005 01:43 (UTC)
 * Delete POV. Better off rewriting from scratch. JamesBurns 5 July 2005 01:49 (UTC)
 * Delete, as presently written this is unclear, not very useful, and rather redundant with other MOS entries. Radiant_ &gt;|&lt; July 5, 2005 12:07 (UTC)
 * Delete, delete and start over, the way it is right now is just a poorly hidden attempt at preeching christian "values" about abortion. Myself July 4, 2005 08:11 (UTC)
 * Wow, as I am pro-choice, I don't know how I managed to preach christian "values" about abortion, I was just trying to make a point about neutrality! --kizzle July 5, 2005 14:29 (UTC)
 * I assume you're joking. The article shows how to handle a very controversial and polar debate like abortion in a NPOV. Double Blue  (Talk) 5 July 2005 14:30 (UTC)

OK, instead of just deleting all the info here, maybe lets talk about what is wrong with it. For those that believe the page is POV, where is it POV? Specifically what passages? For those that want it written over from scratch, what specific aspects do you disagree with, in either content and/or form? And for those that want it merged to NPOV, where is a good place to put it? --kizzle July 5, 2005 17:13 (UTC)
 * My opinion is merge either A) a new section on WP:NPOV somewhere between A simple formulation and An example or B) a new section in NPOV tutorial. Double Blue  (Talk) 5 July 2005 18:42 (UTC)
 * K, will draft something along this article's lines for inclusion in WP:NPOV--kizzle 23:06, July 11, 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.