Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/World citizen

 :''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 Bizarre adventure. The AfD is being closed many years later, because it was never properly closed back then, because it was never visible, because it was never transcluded on any of the daily logpages. Technically, it has still been open this whole time.

Nobody else could ever be admitted here, because this door was made only for you. I am now going to shut it. jp×g 07:29, 18 October 2022 (UTC) (non-admin closure)

World citizen

 * – (View AfD

This article should be deleted, because nothing useful and accurate can be said about the topic, other than a brief, vague, non-notable definition. It is a generic, self-applied term which refers to no specific movement or set of characteristics. All of the material in the article consists of tautological descriptions, or lists of vague, non-controversial characteristics (anti-poverty, anti-prejudice) which may or may not apply to a person using the term. The only incidental WP-appropriate material is lifted from other articles like Baha'i and World Government; the rest is unreferenced and useless. There is no way to make it worthwhile, because it's like writing an article called "Badass": a vague, generic, and ultimately silly term with no firm meaning and no merit as an encyclopedia article. OneVeryBadMan 15:18, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: I agree that much of the article is original research and should be deleted; especially the famous world citizens section as who decides for their inclusion in the list. Given that the logo is from the World Service website (especially this page which gives the definition) maybe the page could be rewritten with that organization in mind.  I'm too busy to do the work at this point, so unless someone else is willing to perform the needed updates, the page may have to be deleted. -- Jeff3000 15:43, 15 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually, I've decided to withdraw my proposal for deletion, and to replace the article for a redirect or disambiguation page, which would be more helpful than outright deletion. OneVeryBadMan 16:29, 15 July 2006 (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.