Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Edit war

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 delete. -Scottywong | spout _ 14:53, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Edit war

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

This page was proposed to be deleted, I think it shouldn't, so I swapped the tag to AFD to get the wider community's opinion on this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Coin945 (talk • contribs)

Delete - The amount of use of the term outside Wikipedia does not make this meet our general notability guideline.Jasper Deng (talk) 04:58, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. No notability outside Wikipedia. The pages in the Wikipedia namespace will suffice. JIP | Talk 06:43, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete' Too narrow the topic. There are also not much stuff to merge. -- Taku (talk) 12:28, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:45, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are plenty of third-party books about Wikipedia and they usually seem to have some coverage of edit wars such as this. The topic is therefore notable. Warden (talk) 17:40, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- No, we need coverage of edit warring specifically and much preferably outside of Wikipedia itself.Jasper Deng (talk) 21:11, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Such coverage is specifically about edit warring and satisfies WP:GNG which states that the coverage "need not be the main topic of the source material". The context in which the coverage occurs is irrelevant to the question of deletion. Warden (talk) 17:44, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And I didn't find nearly enough.Jasper Deng (talk) 19:32, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and source to material about notable edit/revert wars on other websites. Otherwise, move to WP namespace and keep as supplementary material to WP:EDITWAR — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wer900 (talk • contribs) 23:19, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Move to WP namespace as supplementary material to WP:EDITWAR per Wer900. I do not favor keeping this as an article, though. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 16:08, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note Well, I do know that the article Paid editing on Wikipedia has been requested to be be renamed and moved to Conflict of interest editing on Wikipedia , where this article would sit quite nicely. Might be an idea.......--Coin945 (talk) 16:49, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:29, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not notable as an article, and as seems already covered in WP space by WP:EDITWAR.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 16:51, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Notable through coverage only (if at all) as a feature of Wikipedia, rather than as a phenomenon on its own; so coverage of the subject should be limited to articles about Wikipedia. Sandstein 08:16, 6 April 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.