Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ten Commandments for Drivers (third nomination)

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. Sandstein (talk) 19:31, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ten Commandments for Drivers

Assisting nominator with technical aspects; rationale for deletion to be added here. MastCell ^Talk 17:14, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

delete it- I am the nominator, and I am not surprised this is the 3rd time around. Simply put, the page does not appear to be either notable or even capable of being so. As the second nominator noted: "This list is a one-time press release, and probably fails the unofficial ten-year test of notability". That's really all it is, a one off press release. If we had a page for every insignificant press release the vatican made, we'd have thousands of such pages at least.JJJ999 (talk) 02:35, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd add that the previous AfD was probably wrongly decided, it was 2-1 in favour of deletion, and only escapes through a ridiculously generous admin closure of no consensus.JJJ999 (talk) 03:04, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2–1 does sound to me like a "no consensus". If it were 20–10, I might say otherwise. Michael Hardy (talk) 23:36, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It was not "2-1" literally, it was something like 10-5, I can't remember from memory.JJJ999 (talk) 13:48, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lastly, the claim that there were millions of G-hits, is completely false. There are 580 or so, http://www.google.de/search?q=%22commandments+for+drivers%22+%2B+vatican&hl=de&client=firefox-a&channel=s&rls=org.mozilla:de:official&start=580&sa=N and most are not even sources, they are literally myspaces and blogs of random religiously minded people, with remarks like "hey, did you read this, it is not a joke! they really said this!"JJJ999 (talk) 04:35, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- note' FWIW, The 1st AfD was closed as a bad faith nom. DGG (talk) 21:10, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It got a lot of media coverage, and the article is very well-sourced. I'd say a papal edict (rather than a "press release") that gets significant media buzz is notable enough for Wikipedia. It shows (I think) that the Church is trying to make itself more relevant to the age we're living in. Could use some cleanup though. -FrankTobia (talk) 21:35, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. The article still bears the marks of last summer's media frenzy (when it was created), but the nominator's characterization of a teaching document to all the clergy and to lay pastoral workers as a "press release" suggests, on an assumption of good faith, a lack of awareness of what type of document this is. It will be cited in any future pastoral and theological considerations concerning road users and street people. --Paularblaster (talk) 22:04, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And just to clarify things a little: the first AfD was disruptive; and the second was instituted when the article looked like this. --Paularblaster (talk) 22:08, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This looks like a pastoral letter, not a press release. Michael Hardy (talk) 23:39, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Man, it will be such bull if this survives. Everything the Pope says will become noteworthy. Didn't you vote delete last time DGG?JJJ999 (talk) 01:00, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete - the only notability seems to be it was in the news. But why? Apparently more due to its cornyness than to its content. This is more like a meme than anything else and a trivial one at that. David D. (Talk) 02:07, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as the references provided in Ten_Commandments_for_Drivers#References indicate sufficient coverage of this subject in third-party reliable sources to establish a presumption of its notability per the general notability guideline. John254 03:44, 2 February 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.