- 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 userfy. bainer (talk) 07:55, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
more personal essays by ed poor--64.12.117.13 03:18, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep for now. It is only one day old. Right now, it needs a lot of work. I'd give it chance before cutting it off. Ted 04:02, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- comment that's only because you weren't around during ed's final wheel wars, better to cut this off before it ever gets to that point--205.188.117.13 04:04, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- To the anonymous poster, Ed seems to have atoned for his sins.Chaser (T) 07:50, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment "A factual dispute is a dispute over what the facts are." A tautological statement. Also, the comments on religion aren't a dispute over facts, they are a difference of opinion over interpretation of dogma. Sources for Law need to be referenced and cited and scientific method would give a researcher an understanding of how experimental differences are resolved - an article that already exists. (aeropagitica) (talk) 06:25, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete We are not a law dictionary. Hdtopo 07:58, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete... basically what I see here is a tautological statement (as pointed out by aeropagitica) and then it veers off into a catch-all, apparently trying to explain different kinds of factual disputes and why some cannot be solved. The first sentence is a dicdef and the rest is an essay of sorts. No verification from reliable sources. It looks to me like an original research essay... I'm willing to reconsider though if someone advances a good argument why this article should stay.--Isotope23 12:37, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, and nominator should have posted issues with this article/notification of AfD to the article talk page and Ed's talk page before the nomination.--Isotope23 12:44, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete -- Another example of a novel article that represents original research by editor Ed. I hope we aren't seeing a return to old behavior. --ScienceApologist 12:48, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete personal essay/original research. 172 | Talk 13:11, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Request If you choose not to keep it in article namespace, please userfy it. Or let me know after the discussion is closed, and I'll move it myself. Thanks. --Uncle Ed 13:20, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. First line is an obvious dicdef ("A red car is a car that is red.") and the rest is OR essay. Fan1967 14:02, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak delete. Not at all sure a catch all article about "factual disputes" is really about any subject at all. FWIW, our article on fact contains absurdities and POV nonsense (It is the belief that facts have this ability to be absolutely true that allows people to kill and hurt other people. - WTF?), so right now I'd hesitate to suggest merging it there. The article on truth is better. The legal issues are better covered under summary judgment and trier of fact. Most of the unexceptional statements in this article would find better homes elsewhere. Smerdis of Tlön 16:14, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, else move to Wikipedia namespace, else userfy. This does not appear to me to be necessarily POV or OR. As for "Wikipedia is not a legal dictionary," you are right in principle, but also remember that many legal terms, like ex parte and tort, have articles because there is more to the word than a simple definition. My personal opinion is that the idea of factual dispute is notable and broad enough to qualify for an article. - Corbin Be excellent 16:34, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. - Nick C (Review Me!) 16:55, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, lovely but original research. Deltabeignet 18:46, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per Isotope23. It's even weak as a dicdef. The "idea" of "factual dispute" is certainly not notable or broad enough to qualify for an independent article. What little useful info is here is more than amply covered in other articles, such as those listed at Argument. "Factual dispute" is not a legal term, unlike ex parte and tort; at most, it might be a phrase used in a discussion about evidence or a trial. Fluit 23:51, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment nom, this is pretty bad faith-ish if you ask me M1ss1ontomars2k4 (T | C | @) 22:15, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and Cite sources. At the very least the the bit from the Jewish "apocrapha" [sic] should be cited. Most of the rest of it, thus far, would be known to someone with a well rounded education. GRBerry 00:32, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Question of fact is another good spot for the law stuff. I don't know about the science stuff, but perhaps Scientific method?--Chaser (T) 06:10, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Non topic, original research. Covered elsewhere, and better. FeloniousMonk 21:31, 31 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.