Wiki143:Articles for deletion/Thought police

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was revert back to the redirect to Thoughtcrime. I will let the page history stay, so if anyone thinks there is anything in the article worth merging with that article, just take a look at the page history. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:08, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Thought police

Let me state first off that certainly a legitimate, well-cited, balanced and NPOV article could be written on "Thought police". In fact, it was. Then it was merged and redirected to Thoughtcrime. After it had already been merged and redirected for about eight months, someone turned it into a separate article again and rewrote the content to reflect who he believes the modern "thought police" are. This is a POV fork, and it should be deleted without merging. -- Antaeus Feldspar 02:26, 20 July 2005 (UTC) Per the good point brought up by Christopher below, changing my vote to restore the redirect without saving the forked content. -- Antaeus Feldspar 02:51, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Just make it back into a redirect. Grace Note 03:20, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete or redirect to "Thoughtcrime". Hamster Sandwich 05:06, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete and redirect to Thoughtcrime. Rhobite 05:50, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and revert to make it a redirect to Thoughtcrime again. GTBacchus 06:12, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
• Re-redirect to Thoughtcrime. --Angr/ 06:28, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
• If it was merged earlier, wouldn't deleting it destroy the history of whatever was merged? Anyway, redirect (didn't really need to be brought to VFD). Christopher Parham (talk) 08:01, 2005 July 20 (UTC)
• Re-redirect to Thoughtcrime, that article has everything we need about the Thought police in Nineteen Eighty-four and whether his predictions have come true. Thryduulf 11:52, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Thoughtcrime. I do feel that some of this material could perhaps fit into that article, but I say redirect rather than merge because it really should be added thru collaboration with the Thoughtcrime editors (heh), rather than circumventing the process. Dcarrano 12:26, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
• Revert to redirect to Thoughtcrime -- Francs2000 | Talk File:Flag of the United Kingdom.svg 15:02, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Thoughtcrime. Ken 20:57, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep somehow, even if it takes the recommended redirect. ~ WCFrancis 23:44, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
• Re-redirect to thoughtcrime as above. Xoloz 02:48, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
• keep: While deleting this article may be a dream come true for deletionists, but a dark moment for the Wikipedia's institutional memory. The fact that a series of VfD proposals, for Moral compass, Elliott Valenstein and this article, suddenly arose, after repudiation of protracted efforts to delete the New Freedom Commission on Mental Health Wikilink from the Mind control article, brings into doubt the propriety of these proposed VfDs. Ombudsman 03:11, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
• Merge/Redirect as appriopriate like others suggest (Oh noes! Groupthink!) Gamera2 00:59, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Thoughtcrime. Simple enough. --Calton | Talk 01:47, July 23, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge/Redirect overlapping & new content with Thoughtcrime | Cwolfsheep 15:16, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Out of curiosity, what content do you see in the article that deserves merging? I think Dcarrano makes a good point, that whatever content is in Thought police that isn't in Thoughtcrime was not produced by collaboration with other editors but by the exact opposite. -- Antaeus Feldspar 18:25, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Thoughtcrime as my hive-mind insists. brenneman^(t)(c) 03:46, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.