Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Support and criticism of Cindy Sheehan

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. Cirt (talk) 11:40, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support and criticism of Cindy Sheehan

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I see no reason for this article to exist. Normally this would be a merge issue, but the subject is already adequately covered in the main article. This article, however, is a "X said Y about Sheehan" quotefarm and a magnet for POV, OR and SYNTH from both sides. Not encyclopedic, not needed. Black Kite 17:28, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:20, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. There doesnt appear to be any support or critique of any factual material Ms. Sheehan has provided. these are personal opinions only. any truly relevant, sourced, opinions, esp. from veterans organizations, the president, official statements from war protest organizations, political parties, etc can easily go in her main article. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 22:16, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Have been meaning to get around to it myself. The few notable criticisms easily can be moved into the main article which I have edited a lot to source and to remove WP:undue material, pro and con. CarolMooreDC (talk) 23:59, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "Cindy who?" Seriously, this is an article that never needed to be created in the first place, and I'm surprised that it stayed up for three years (and it's hard to believe that it's been three years since Cindy Sheehan's famous protest against the Iraq war). Nowadays, this type of quotable-quote, "what did Rush have to say" article usually gets nominated the moment it's created. We've come a long way. Mandsford (talk) 22:39, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No reason to merge as this article is a bunch of so-and-so said this type of material. -- Whpq (talk) 20:07, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it as a coatrack. Ray^Talk 23:10, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or maybe rename to "Stuff that doesn't belong in the real article about Cindy Sheehan but someone cared about it a lot so we had to compromise." EvanHarper (talk) 01:21, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this is essentially a WP:NOTNEWS issue. This content may have seemed highly important and relevant at the time, but it hardly does now (and our inclusion standards have risen since then). Any useful content here could be merged to the Cindy Sheehan article, but to be honest I don't think there's much worth merging - this is basically just a list of quotes about her. Robofish (talk) 20:39, 18 November 2009 (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.