Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Water fluoridation quotes

 This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was - deleted - SimonP 02:11, May 14, 2005 (UTC)

Water fluoridation quotes
A collection of quotes moved from water fluoridation. This is an intensely silly politicised issue, but these quotes are not scientific opinions and therefore are more for entertainment than actual article content. They should either be deleted or transwikified to Wikiquote. JFW | T@lk  22:01, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, POV, not encyclopaedic. Megan1967 04:09, 6 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Soapbox, original source material.  Some could be transwikied, I suppose.  Any important content or ideas should already be in water fluoridation, so no merge is required. --TenOfAllTrades (talk/contrib) 05:18, 6 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, already said. Not Wikiquote material, in my opinion. Not notable in my impression. How about Wikisource. if it is an original material. -- Aphaea *  08:35, 6 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Ice cream, Mandrake, children's ice cream...Delete, or perhaps send some over to wikiquote. This is not an encyclopedia article. -R. fiend 15:35, 6 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, and please spare Wikiquote. Eustace 23:10, 2005 May 6 (UTC)
 * Comment, On behalf of the English Wikiquote community I heartfully request to every voter who will vote after my comment to review Wikiquote deletion policy and past discussion. If this page will be posted as is, I dare say I will delete it as speedy as Danny did once here. -- Aphaea *  10:23, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Thank you Aphaea, you are right. This should be deleted, and I've changed my vote above. JFW | T@lk  11:00, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
 * HALF OF THIS IS IN FULL CAPITALS SO THAT THE READER WILL KNOW IT IS VERY IMPORTANT. I am kicking myself for not having previously thought of this extraordinarily ingenious idea. If I now say  DELETE  you'll know that my vote is important too. And that aside, what no quote from General J D Ripper (via Doctor Strangelove)? -- Hoary 10:28, 2005 May 9 (UTC)
 * As the "creator" of this article, and I use the term sparingly, I really don't object to this article being deleted. Incredibly, this initially formed the bulk of the Water fluoridation article, and unfortunetely I haven't had the time, or the assistance to begin sifting through it, and searching for coherent/useful information.  If anyone wants to step in and rescue something, that might be a good thing, but I believe that most of it is junk anyway.  It just seemed unfair to come in and delete what was such a large portion of content, that had seemingly developed over time, without giving the editors at Water fluoridation a chance to save some of it.  Given that it has been a few weeks now, I think it's reasonable to delete it now, but we should give a couple of days for the editors at Water fluoridation to oppose this, as the article does link to this page, and that is where the content originated from and was developed.  I'll post something to the Water fluoridation discussion page, and if there's no response in a couple of days, I'd say its quite fair to remove the page.  --Brendanfox 11:18, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, unencyclopedic. Darrien 23:08, 2005 May 12 (UTC)
 * Comment, I will first say that I believe the original Water fluoridation article is very much inadequate seeing that it is definitely not neutral and no where near the overwhelming concensus of international scientific research (notice there are 4 links to "pro-fluoridation" sites and 19 links to "anti-fluoridation" sites). Nonetheless, what I think someone was trying to do was to make the Water fluoridation quotes article be a place to relieve some of the clutter from the original article.  I do not think it worked, and it is definitely a mess.  Instead, as I believe it has been suggested earlier, if the authors want to write an extensive article on the objections to water fluoridation (using "facts" and opinions disputed by most of the scientific world), I think they should do it in another article entitled something like Water Fluoridation (controversy) and have the majority of the original article expressing facts (such as where water fluoridation is used/banned) and conclusions accepted by the scientific community.  A bit of this controversy might be fine in the original article to represent the beliefs of some people, but I do not think it would do much good to just move/keep this amount of quotes in the original article. dozenist 04:14, 13 May 2005 (UTC)


 * This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.