Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Inquisition (myths and misconceptions)


 * 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  d elete. - Mailer Diablo 00:17, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

The Inquisition (myths and misconceptions)

 * – (View AfD) (View log)


 * Delete: POV fork from Inquisition, poorly written, little or no salvageable content. Peter G Werner 01:41, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Entirely OR. the_undertow talk  02:43, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete. Unsalvageable OR. EditingManiac (contribs) 02:45, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as redundancy, probably merge to Inquisition. WooyiTalk, Editor review 05:31, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. The rationale for it was written in the "talk page" at the start. Creating a stub article seemed like the best way of clearly showing what the suggestion was about and to check for any interest. I could certainly find references to most of these myths, I just don't think anyone would care. DanielDemaret 07:28, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: Just to point out, User:DanielDemaret is the sole author of the article in question, and he's on record as supporting deletion. Peter G Werner 16:24, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. This is original research and not from a neutral point of view. Sr13 (T|C) 09:09, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete As Sr13 notes, it's OR that completely violates NPOV. /Blaxthos 15:16, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - NPOV, OR. The Hippie  20:21, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge & Redirect - Well, this ain't exactly NPOV, if you catch my drift. ;-) Furthermore, most of this can't really be proven...just take some of the confirmed stuffelz and put it in the Inquisition article. Later! ;-) Cheers,  R R   [ iTalk  ]  21:00, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment merging doesn't seem like a great idea. articles shouldn't have trivia style sections.  Documented false claims that have published work about them could go into Inquisition, but this stuff is unsourced and in an improper format.  i kan reed 21:32, 6 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete particularly along the lines of WP:TRIVIA and the random collection of information rules of WP:NOT. i kan reed 21:30, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete; the talk page establishes that this is a PoV fork. - Smerdis of Tlön 13:55, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete: POV fork from Inquisition, poorly written, little or no salvageable content as per Peter G Werner 01:41, 6 May 2007 (UTC)Hobomojo 03:16, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletions.   IZAK 07:51, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete this attempt at apologetics and WP:OR with no WP:CITE. IZAK 07:51, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete No evidence that the topic of myths and misconceptions about the Inquisition (as distinct from the inquisition itself) has any notability. For all we know based on what's been shown, a Wikipedia editor might have invented the topic, putting together various primary pieces of information to form an original synthesis. There are currently no sources. --Shirahadasha 04:36, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge This information needs to be merged into Inquisition along with references to back it up. Aspenocean 10:31, 10 May 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.