Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Process of the accused person
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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. PhilKnight (talk) 01:44, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Process of the accused person (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log) • Afd statistics
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Some of the content has been copied from http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/terrorism/terrorismcoates.htm. Other than that, this has unreferenced and unencyclopaedic material. Also, I've realised the author removed the speedy deletion tag. [1] Minimac (talk) 20:34, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 23:01, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 23:02, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete. WP:ESSAY, WP:OR, plus style mess. Misnamed orphan. Redundant with Due_process#Procedural_due_process. Editor who created article hasn't touched Wikipedia in two years and is unlikely to improve the article. THF (talk) 23:09, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, though a redirect might be in order since there's a suitable target. Otherwise, it's an essay, unreferenced, not encyclopedic and totally unsuitable. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 23:57, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment A redirect would be a CSD R3. THF (talk) 10:49, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Don't think do — I wouldn't call this title all that implausible. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 20:47, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I do. THF (talk) 17:30, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Good point. Let's stay with delete then. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 18:11, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I do. THF (talk) 17:30, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- 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.