Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Talk:European Convention on Human Rights

Talk:European Convention on Human Rights
Let me be clear, I'm talking about the Talk page, not the article. I know its a talk page, and we don't normally do this sort of thing, but the only contents is a rant/diatribe from an anon that doesn't really belong here. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 23:16, Dec 17, 2004 (UTC)


 * Delete. See above. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 23:16, Dec 17, 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete, probably speediable. --fvw *  23:44, 2004 Dec 17 (UTC)
 * Delete . If the user isn't going to relate his opinions to building or improving the article, his rant violates the "Wikipedia is not a soapbox" policy. [[User:Livajo|&#1051;&#1080;&#1074;&#1072;&#1081; | &#9786;]] 00:22, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * I guess blanking works. (You learn something new every day on Wikipedia) [[User:Livajo|&#1051;&#1080;&#1074;&#1072;&#1081; | &#9786;]] 04:58, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Uh...why not blank it? "Refactoring to remove attacks and rambling" might work.  If it gets re-inserted a couple of times, go to ban. Geogre 02:27, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * I agree a VfD might be a bit too much effort being expended on this, but now that we have it here we might as well delete, to avoid people seeing the blue discussion link and thinking there's something there (yet another reason to have blank pages be equal to deleted pages, but that's a discussion for another day). --fvw *  18:07, 2004 Dec 18 (UTC)
 * I Blanked it. It's in the page history where it belongs. BTW, the user may have naively thought that a personal narrative might somehow influence editorial commentary in the article, which might in turn influence some politician in Brussels. Wyss 02:44, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep - Blanking is the correct (and simple) solution. -- Netoholic @ 04:47, 2004 Dec 18 (UTC)
 * Keep, as obviously the problem is in the ranter, not in the existence of the talk page itself. --Pgreenfinch 08:57, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)