Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ten Commandments for Drivers (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 No consensus, default to Keep. Waltontalk 17:13, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Ten Commandments for Drivers
AfDs for this article: 
 * – (View AfD) (View log)

The first AFD was closed a few minutes ago as a bad-faith nomination. I agree with that decision, but looking at the article, I considered: just because the nominator was a jerk (and has been blocked indefinitely), doesn't mean he's wrong on the substance of the matter. This list is a one-time press release, and probably fails the unofficial ten-year test of notability. Let this article have its five days in court. :) Yechiel Man 23:11, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete This is why I said "without prejudice" originally; this is a nine days' wonder that would be more appropriate to Wikinews than Wikipedia unless long-term notability is established. -- Charlene 23:18, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * My first thought was "Is this something for Wikisource....?" Hm, no because it's in copyright. If this simply the text of what the Vatican said, without commentary or analysis....isn't it a copyright violation?--Sandy Donald 23:19, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment That's a good point. Official papal pronouncements are copyright, so is this? I think the probability is high enough that this could be speedied. -- Charlene 23:22, 20 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep Guidance issued by the Vatican advising Catholics to behave in a certain way seems to me to be inherently notable. Presumably this document remains current as far as the Church is concerned until such time as it is replaced or the Vatican says it is no longer applicable. It was the subject of a number of news reports. The article has problems - I suspect this "ten commandments" phrase (as applied to this document) was invented by a journalist rather then being an official title. Even so, keep and improve.Hobson 23:31, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong delete per nom. Let it go, regardless of previous nom  G  1  ggy  Talk/Contribs 00:00, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per Hobson. ?   TomasBat   00:09, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete This has no real content. Papal encyclicals have content, and should have separate articles. Minor press releases do not, and minor is the word for this one The actual document might perhaps be worth an article. DGG 00:30, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per the excellent point by Charlene.fic and the fact that this article hasn't been around long enough to truly gain much notability. For now, I say delete. Leave it on Wikinews or a similar project for a while, and then we can bring it back if it truly is that notable. Arknascar44 ¡Hablar Conmigo! 01:23, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per Hobson. It's very debatable whether this would be considered a copyvio. This was published in a number of sources and could be very useful... Ranma9617 01:48, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Being published in 'a number of sources' does not have any bearing on copyrights. Even if the copyright holder has decided to let lots of people copy it and publish it themselves in order to get the word out, it's still copyrighted, and probably not released under a license compatible with Wikipedia. --Aquillion 06:59, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 'Comment. The official name for this document is "Guidelines for the Pastoral Care of the Road". As well as roadusers, it also relates to prostitutes, tramps and street kids . The media attention has been on the so-called Ten Commandments for Drivers but our focus should be wider aspects of the document. However, it appears to be a guideline not an encyclical so its status is somewhat less but it might be worth an article given the interest. Capitalistroadster 02:22, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. An encyclical results in large amount of commentary, discussion, and interpretation, which on its own would support an article, and often has far-reaching effects.  This, though, is just a press release, with nothing to suggest that there will ever be any more material or commentary on it, and no reason to think it will have wide-ranging impact; its bare text, alone, is not enough for an encyclopedic article. Copyright concerns are also serious; if necessary, it could be summarized instead of posted itself, but I'm not sure I see the point.  --Aquillion 06:55, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletions.   -- John Vandenberg 08:41, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletions.   -- John Vandenberg 08:41, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete probably copyright violation, infact if it is published in a number of sources, then I can almost guarantee that it's a copyright violation. Also, what makes this worthy of an article, if it had some effect on deaths, stirred up controversy or something then it might be worth an article, but just because the Vatican makes an announcement doesn't mean we should have an article on it. Besides number 8 could be dangerous in the case of road rage.  James086 Talk &#124;  Email 09:25, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Worries of copyright aside, a one-off press release from the Vatican really doesn't warrant its own article.  We don't hit the 'pedia every time the Pope opens his mouth.  Ark yan  &#149; (talk) 15:29, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete While I disagree with the nominator's assertion that there exists a "ten year rule" for notability, this topic doesn't appear to meet the main notability criteria of having multiple independently published sources about it over a span of time. All the sources are derived from the same primary press release and in the same one to two day time span.  So delete for now, and reconsider if and when this is written about more extensively down the road.  (P.S.  That doesn't mean this topic can't be mentioned briefly in another article on a broader topic, such as giving it a sentence or two mention in an article on driving regulations or church edicts, etc.) Dugwiki 19:20, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep A few days old, yet gets over 800.000 ghits including virtually every major news outlet. These are papal commandments, there is no copyright problem (it's not scientology, catholics rule your life for free). Malc82 19:48, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Rename and expand to Guidelines for Pastoral Care of the Road. The Category:Documents of the Catholic Church has many articles and this one seems to be as notable/verifiable as many others. Although focussing on its populist/media-buzzword name is unprofessional.--T. Anthony 03:09, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Firstly, there are no copyright concerns.  The list is a tiny excerpt; see  61. Drivers’ “Ten Commandments”.  As others have said, the only way to deal with this in an encyclopedic manner is to cover the entire document at Guidelines for Pastoral Care of the Road, so that these ten commandments can be put in perspective.  At it is, this is a hack job to ridicule the RCC by focusing on the minute detail, and is more appropriate on Wikinews. (not that Wikinews is full of hack jobs, just that they are more acceptable there). John Vandenberg 04:36, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep As mentioned above, things issued by the Pope are inherently notable. I agree with the rename to Guidlines for Pastoral Care of the Road. Millancad 04:50, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - If the document is to be retained the title should be amended as suggested, but also including the word "catholic". As an encyclopaedia article, it should provide a brief commentary on the document (covering all POVs), not merely reproduce a list of its main points.  Peterkingiron 11:14, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. SakotGrimshine 14:16, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as non-notable and unencyclopedic. Also, I am not convinced that it is not a copyright violation. Even if it is a small portion of the document, it makes up the entire article aside from a quotation from a Vatican official and the first sentence. -- Kjkolb 21:08, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment non-notable because... ? There are over 1 million ghits now . Could need expansion and may be renamed/redirected to the whole document, but that's no reason to delete the article. We have the whole text of the ten commandments too and a large number of websites already publish all 10 driver-commandments, that's because they are commandments, they are meant for publication and there is zero chance of copyright becoming a problem here. Malc82 17:27, 24 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep and Improve- It was announced by His Holiness and has received a lot of media coverage. Why should it be deleted? E  ddie  16:58, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Retraction of commentary a link to the '10 commandments' is provided in a comment above. Please ignore my input as being ignorant trash. --User:Ceyockey ( talk to me ) 00:41, 26 June 2007 (UTC) Transwiki to Wikinews.  The article in question can't cite the document released by the Holy See that contains the content to which the article purports to speak &mdash; and that signals a problem.  I've gone looking through the Vatican site (not an easy thing, mind you) and have not found any such thing as a 'ten commandments for drivers' or anything close to approaching the pop culture listing that appears in this article.  The closest thing is this press release which refers to this document set (note that the link in the press release is broken and I needed to smith the url to get to the proper page).  To boot, the exact meeting event that is noted in the press release has not been added to the website of the Holy See, so that the full proceedings - or even the full official documents - are not yet available.  So, what this Wikipedia article reflects is news seen through a pop culture lens; a proper article cannot at present be crafted because primary materials are not available to support its creation.  This belongs at Wikinews. --User:Ceyockey ( talk to me ) 00:36, 26 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.