Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Property damage
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 keep. John254 00:52, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Property damage[edit]
- Property damage (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
Contested PROD. Completely unsourced, survived an AfD in 2004 (yes, that is correct) in the basis of improvement, which hasn't happened. Specific topics dealt with elsewhere in WikiProject:Law, arson, etc. This article doesn't decide whether it's law, sociology or politics, it's title is too broad to be sustainable, and it's difficult to see how it could be made useful. Rodhullandemu (Talk) 23:55, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The article could still be improved, and it is worth having it. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 02:34, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. It could use some work, maybe sectionalizing into law, sociology, politics as you speak of, but as a sort of meta-article, I think it is useful and necessary, mostly as a navigational aid to find what they're looking for. Celarnor Talk to me 05:40, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Needs lots of work but will evolve into an article that will be more useful (if not more interesting) than the stuff I write about here! House of Scandal (talk) 21:54, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- (Wry)Comment Are you volunteering? Because this is what happened three years ago. Everyone thought it was worthy, but nobody did anything about it. See you back here in 2011. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 21:59, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. As you are the one who has such an objection to the current state of the article, why don't you improve it? Phil Bridger (talk) 20:19, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- (Wry)Comment Are you volunteering? Because this is what happened three years ago. Everyone thought it was worthy, but nobody did anything about it. See you back here in 2011. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 21:59, 19 March 2008 (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.