Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Moral Fabric

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 on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. --Phroziac^(talk) 23:37, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Moral Fabric

I'm considering this article to be original research because it appears to be some sort of rant about Christian values. Solarusdude 00:08, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Original research/POV. Andrew pmk | Talk 00:16, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete POV unless rewritten.. There is a possible article in there thouhj. Dlyons493 Talk 00:31, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete POV issues Olorin28 00:32, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Cleanup. POV as written, but I can see it being useful with the addition of specific quotes using the trope discussed, or academic sources discussing the rhetorical strategy. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 00:43, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Cleanup otherwise delete. Jwissick ^(t)^(c) 00:44, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/Cleanup Concept notable, although the current article is junk. DirectorStratton 02:27, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - article is junk, but term is widely used. Add cleanup tag/rewrite. ≈ jossi ≈ 03:14, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: We already have Family values. What could this article cover that wouldn't be appropriate there? Gazpacho 03:22, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There could be an article on this subject, but this particular article is beyond cleanup. Delete it and let someone start from scratch. It is easy to say keep and mark for cleanup but it won’t get done and meanwhile this junk continues to be displayed for the world to see, which demeans the Wikipedia. If it really needs to be posted in the Wikipedia, put it on the Most Wanted Articles list ♠ DanMS 03:38, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as original research. Groeck 04:06, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as POV essay. It don't see the need for a cleanup tag because all that needs to be retained is the title for which we have requested articles. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:10, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. utcursch | talk 08:15, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - broadly speaking, I agree with DanMS. Anville 11:07, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unsalvageable rant Pilatus 12:35, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per DanMS. If an article is delete-worthy, but the potential exists for a better article with the same name, then it should still be deleted - nothing stops someone from creating a better article after the deletion, but if gets kept it'll just stay as it is, cleanup tag or none. --Last Malthusian 14:21, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It is difficult to see how a NPOV version of this article would differ from the section on conservative Family values. As I can see there could be a difference a redirect is inappropriate. Sliggy 14:47, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The rant issue aside, I don't see why this should be an independent article. Dottore So 17:29, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article should be deleted for all the reasons above, and if for nothing else, for using a rhetorical question in an encyclopedia article. The mind boggles. --131.183.99.132 19:31, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per DanMS's advice. Cleanup is a license to linger. Nae'blis 21:01, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Mgm. --Scimitar ^parley 21:22, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with POV removed, it's barely a dictionary definition. Even that is questionable. Dystopos 15:37, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Cleanup - The subject is notable, and it could be salvaged. CHAIRBOY (☎) 00:05, 2 October 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.