Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Parent revocation

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 Snow delete. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:53, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Parent revocation

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

Wikipedia is not for essays or soapboxing. If there was a speedy deletion criterion for this, I would have nominated it as such. As it stands, the article seems to be the author's intent to spread awareness of some amendment by the U.S. Department of Education, and basically contains a lot of original research and personal commentary. I'm not sure much of anything can be salvaged here. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 09:01, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt I actually deleted an earlier version of this owing to its hefty copyright violation of this letter, not to mention violating WP:SOAP, WP:NOTREPOSITORY, WP:NOTMANUAL, WP:ESSAY and WP:OR. This version is no better. The author seems determined to push their article into Wikipedia (I've just reported them at ANI for issuing a legal threat on their talk page in response to the last deletion of it), and clearly isn't here for any constructive purpose. Yunshui 雲‍水 09:11, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The article's creator is now blocked for making legal threats, so will not be able to respond here. Yunshui 雲‍水 09:28, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete I tagged a previous version which was a lengthy copyvio and this, although apparently "revised", is no better. I bet a million bucks that there will not be a "Keep" !vote on this AfD, so delete per WP:SNOW, maybe? Cyan Gardevoir ^{(used EDIT!)} 10:23, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy/snow delete per above. This is a lot of WP:NOTs all rolled into one, just far more blatant than some of the other WP:NOT articles we get on AfD.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 10:40, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – unsalvageable as separate article. Apart from the unacceptable use of Wikipedia as a soapbox, which this article is clearly intended to be, the topic itself is not really notable enough for a stand-alone article. It is one provision + a minor revision of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. At most, the basic and reliably sourced information can be added there without the soapboxing, personal commentary, extrapolation, and original research. See [1], [2], [3] for suitable refs. Voceditenore (talk) 11:19, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - totally unsalvageable spoapbox piece. Even if the topic was notable, blowing it up and starting over would be the best action. --Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:39, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note The article has been deleted by The Anome with the summary: "deleted page Parent revocation (Speedy closure of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Parent revocation)" Shouldn't this AfD therefore be marked as closed? Voceditenore (talk) 13:24, 24 September 2012 (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.