Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Suicide attacks in popular culture (2nd nomination)


 * 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. Sr13 05:51, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Suicide attacks in popular culture

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Delete - the first nomination of this article closed "no consensus," with many of the keep voters earnestly asserting that the items on this unsourced list could be sourced. Three months and no substantive edits later, this remains a completely unsourced list, in addition to being an indiscriminate collection of loosely-associated items which may actually be suicide attacks or which may only be suicide attacks in the opinion of the editor who entered it (e.g. In the 1954 film adaptation of Animal Farm, Mr. Jones is seen planting explosives in the farm's windmill, but is not seen leaving the vicinity, implying he carried out a suicide attack.). Otto4711 14:07, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletions.   -- John Vandenberg 14:26, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletions.   -- John Vandenberg 14:27, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - violates WP:NOT and WP:NOT --Hnsampat 14:38, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The article's creator is neutral. --Lenin and McCarthy |  (Complain here) 16:28, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete edit war bait for one, two, what defines a "suicide attack" so that it gets on the list. Kwsn (Ni!) 20:14, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete WP:NOT. Masaruemoto 04:33, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. It's hard to judge the potential for such an article in the face of such a dreadfully poor realization, but it seems that it will always be awash in “original research” and cannot transcend being a mere catalogue without even more “original research”. —SlamDiego&#8592;T 10:19, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. It was given a fair chance to be sourced, and it failed.  POV and OR implications aside, it's completely indiscriminate and a glorified trivia section.  I doubt any of it is important enough to be merged.  María ( críticame ) 15:24, 19 June 2007 (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.