Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Top 10 torture methods of the middle ages (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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 15:49, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Top 10 torture methods of the middle ages
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log )

Non-sourced original research; violates WP:NOT and WP:NOR mhking (talk) 03:57, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

i added proper citations! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Llease (talk • contribs) 04:10, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
 * What is the purpose of this article? Are you trying to list the top ten "most painful" methods? Because such a list violates WP:NPOV. It could be merged with an article about torture methods in general, however. Mr.   Anon  515  04:15, 15 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Oh god delete, Wikipedia isn't a host for everyone's school project. (Nominator/admin might want to note that some irregularity has apparently led to the existence of two separate nominations for the same article from the same day.) Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 05:13, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete Please delete as soon as possible. The "references" consist of an amateur torture methods website and a newspaper op-ed criticizing torture in the modern war against terror.  Neither mentions "Top 10" torture methods. Entirely original research, poorly written, and really quite repellent. Cullen328 (talk) 05:48, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete per Cullen328. While the one RS reference says Christians don't approve of torture, and that is nice to know, it does not support even one word of the article. KeptSouth (talk) 08:41, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete, original research. Of the sources, one has nothing to do with the article, and the other looks like an amateur website. J I P  &#124; Talk 09:04, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete per nom and above comments. Cool stuff though... --NortyNort (Holla) 13:07, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep and slap a Template:Humor tag on it. An absolutely hilarious example of what not to do. Alternatively, Delete but that will be Wikipedia's loss. Bazonka (talk) 14:42, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
 * What not to do both with an article and in real life.--NortyNort (Holla) 15:00, 15 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:49, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
 * From Template:Humor itself:
 * This template should never be used on pages in the article namespace, since it should never include any non-factual or non-encyclopedic articles. Only use it in other spaces such as Wikipedia namespace.
 * In other words, the template does not apply to actual Wikipedia articles, only to Wikipedia's internal discussion. J I P  &#124; Talk 20:19, 15 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete. There's already List of methods of torture. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:14, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete - Unencyclopedic list cruft. Carrite (talk) 02:05, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete per Cullen328. The inclusion/exclusion criteria are POV, described vaguely as "very barbaric", and the content is rather repulsive original research. Jll (talk) 18:32, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete as a poorly sourced POV-ridden WP:Content fork apparently based on original research, but if there's any solidly sourced content here (not clear to me that there is), I suppose it could be merged to List of methods of torture. --Orlady (talk) 17:19, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete Top 10 articles cannot be part of an encyclopaedia. These sort of articles are very popular on the internet but are unnecessary on wikipedia. I do not need a separate article on the top 10 tallest US Presidents (at a stretch (sorry :) ) this could be a sub-section in US Presidents, or top 10 shortest whatever. If I want to know about mediaeval torture I go to the article and read about it, here I might find an insight as to the most popular or successful methods. I suggest strapping the editor to the rack or burning him in some way to ensure that he deletes this asap Benqish (talk) 15:00, 20 January 2011 (UTC).
 * Delete by slowly editing it away, letter by letter. walk victor falktalk 16:51, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete and BJAODN This is hilarious, but definitely not encyclopedic. --Nat682 (talk) 03:02, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep and rename to Torture methods in the middle ages. See Uses of torture in recent times and Medieval instruments of torture (methods is different than instruments). Removing "Top 10" from the name would remove the reactionary trigger from the topic and allow for a more intellectual discussion rather than emotional discussion. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 06:30, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The method can, and in some cases is already included within Medieval instruments of torture under the instrument. The article is also on methods as well and the "instruments" section could be renamed within the article.--NortyNort (Holla) 09:27, 22 January 2011 (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.