Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Woodstock defence


 * 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. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 01:49, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Woodstock defence

 * – ( View AfD View log )


 * Delete WP:BIAS and WP:COATRACK for accusation widely reported elsewhere in Wikipedia. Obviously sarcastic and WP:POV. There are sufficient articles that all overlap on this topic anyway. Student7 (talk) 23:21, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions.  —I, Jethrobot drop me a line 01:29, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions.  —I, Jethrobot drop me a line 01:29, 1 July 2011 (UTC)


 * the coatrack accusation is not explained and not easy to understand. The article subject matches the content.
 * for the bias accusation, can you suggest anything inappropriately included or excluded?

It seems that the main complaint is that this article exists at all, and its deletion is being sought to play down an embarrassing topic. Tzq99 (talk) 11:14, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment . Delete. Apparently this term was coined only six weeks ago by a New York Times writer, however, the applicable reference states "blame Woodstock" and does not mention "Woodstock defense" or "Woodstock defence". I have big concerns regarding WP:OR, WP:SYNTH, and WP:NEO. Location (talk) 14:14, 1 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment. This "information" is elsewhere in Wikipedia already, sans the newly constructed pejorative. This article is simply a new mechanism on which to hang old information, which is already recorded. Student7 (talk) 13:00, 3 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Smerge anything useful to Catholic sex abuse cases or one of its sub-articles. I see no good reason to split out the response of the Church from these articles. -- Whpq (talk) 20:02, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:09, 7 July 2011 (UTC)




 * Delete not a notable term KING OF WIKIPEDIA - GRIM LITTLEZ (talk) 02:47, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete - The sources seem to be marginal, and the topic doesnt appear to meet the WP Notability requirement.  Any valid material currently in the article can be merged into  Catholic sex abuse cases. --Noleander (talk) 06:26, 7 July 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.