The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete.   jj137 ^♠ 01:13, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This page is a WP:BLP violation in user space. It contains serious accusations against living people that are not all attributed to reliable sources. Furthermore, even of those entries which are sourced, all but one or two of the accusations are examples of original research via synthesis since the term "Sudden jihad syndrome" was not actually used in any reliable account of the event. It was deleted and deleted again in article space. Obviously, the consensus is that this will never be an encyclopedic topic, so there's no reason to keep it around anywhere. *** Crotalus *** 23:37, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: This article is a user subpage under devellopment conforming with Wikipedia policy on user subpages which are allowed, precisely so that content may developed and brought up to Wikipedia article standards. Contrary to what user Crotalus horridus states the existing content is sourced to reliable sources so Crotalus's nomination for deletion is inacurate, misleading and without merit. --CltFn (talk) 12:49, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, original synthesis per nom, it's simply an attempt to tie together unrelated events under a non-notable topic (some of which are only loosely connected to the topic itself), with dubious and occasionally non-existent sourcing. Apparently an attempt to avoid consensus that this is not encyclopedic. --Coredesat 13:23, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete — This has now been the subject of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sudden Jihad Syndrome as well as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sudden jihad syndrome. It's since been recreated in the article space and subsequently G4ed as well as the redirect C1ed due to lack of mention on the alleged coiner's article. The most immediate concern would be the BLP issue. On top of that, there's even more original research than the older incarnations. --slakr^\ talk / 13:38, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Once the article is deleted and the page is userfied for more work (or whatever the reason), if it is not ready to be re-posted after a few months, then the user should move the contents off-wiki, as per Wikipedia:User_page#Copies_of_other_pages. The last AfD was March '07, so the statute of limitations has run out.--12 Noon ^2¢ 15:43, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per 12noon's comment, a page like this could be a legit effort towards an acceptable page but if it's been there since march with no improvement i think its time to yank it. SJMNY (talk) 07:08, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• delete - per 12 noon. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 04:07, 11 January 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 page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.