Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/New Orleans Protocol
- 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. Phaedriel - 23:37, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- New Orleans Protocol (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
Wikipedia appears to be the primary reference on the Internet for this; Wikipedia, mirrors and hate sites account for most of the 79 unique Google hits. Nothing in Google News, and my Factiva search didn't turn up anything either. Guy (Help!) 18:36, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak delete. No one else seems to've cared, and the article doesn't list any consequences of this agreement. --Gwern (contribs) 22:13 14 September 2007 (GMT)
- Comment The point of the agreement is to not have any consequences — it's all about keeping these racists out of the news media. CWC 08:02, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak delete. I've worked on the article in the past. It seemed more important then but, as Gwern points out, it hasn't drawn any comment or reaction in the intervening years. Some of the info can be merged to David Duke. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:34, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. has all the notability of a deal struck in a prison laundry room. I see nothing reporting the outcome and effects of the 'treaty'. ThuranX 00:28, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep. It did get some coverage by the SPLC ([1], [2]) and similar organizations[3], and it seems to important amongst the non-blatantly-deranged Racist Right in (at least) the U.S. and Canada. Quite a few racist organizations have signed up to it.
I say that Wikipedia should cover it. Keeping the article would be my first choice.
OTOH, it appears to be fairly closely tied to David Duke (eg., [http://www.stormfront.org/forum/showthread.php?p=1502526] Duke advocating it], some odious blogger claiming that it's just Duke's way of covering up his past), so moving it into David Duke as a new section would be my second choice. CWC 08:02, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply] - Delete per Guy. Eusebeus 13:43, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete not notable Dlabtot 02:10, 19 September 2007 (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.