Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Age of consent in North America

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 of the debate was speedy keep. An incorrect name is not a valid reason to nominate an article for deletion anyway; WP:RM is the proper forum for that. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 19:23, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Age of consent in North America[edit]

The name is factually incorrect, the article violates WP:NOR, as it is not verified. Delete Ardenn 16:09, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

speedy keep -- tasc ^talk_deeds 16:16, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep since nominator's reasoning does not seem correct: just about everything links to outside verification (gov websites, law website, etc). If anything, this is far better, verification-wise, than probably 99% of Wikipedia articles. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:22, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
speedy keep, plenty of verification. Needs some input (more states, countries) but it's a great start. — AKADriver ☎ 16:25, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems OK for a start. Verification is at least as good as most articles in Wikipedia. This AfD seems to be the result of an edit war over the title. Work it out! Ted 16:48, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Nominator has been in an edit war trying to speedy it out of process, and move it around. Bad faith nomination? I'd close it as a speedy keep, but I'm involved in the dispute so I'd rather not. Luigi30 (Ταλκ το mε) 18:00, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep – yep, bad faith nomination – Gurch 18:38, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep AfD is not the way to address edit wars -- Samir (the scope) धर्म 19:04, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Rename. Ardenn is right on the article's talk page when he states that it's a misleading name (in the US alone, there are differing ages of consent for sex, marriage and contractual arrangements), but the list itself is eminently verifiable. RGTraynor 19:19, 9 May 2006 (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.