Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alternative Analysis - The Fourth Amendment

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. - Mailer Diablo 04:40, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Alternative Analysis - The Fourth Amendment

Original research. Despite author's attempt to create policy to the contrary, WP:OR is not allowed. Weregerbil 10:18, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

• Note Author has moved article to Alternative Analysis - Judicial Activism. -- Fan-1967 19:37, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Seems like a pov fork. Any useful info should go on the 4th amendment page. The Ungovernable Force 10:22, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
  • This article is in fact a direct result of the removal of "in the opinion of the author" content that cited no sources from Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution. See Talk:Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution#NPOV. Uncle G 13:25, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as original research as per nom, as there are no citations to validate this article. --FreelanceWizard 10:23, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
• Instead of writing the article off immediately why can't we discuss how it might possibly be useful?

  Please evaluate the following;

  1. Does the analysis provide reliable information in a manner that does not qualify it as opinion?
  2. Does the article take sides on the issue - conservative or liberal - or does it raise a valid issue unrecognized by tertiary sources?
  3. Does the article start with a clear premise - that judicial activism is the opposite of what conventional thinking is today. Does it show the whole issue to be misunderstood.
  4. Each section can be sourced by legal and expert citation (some are) - in other words it can be backed up by facts which when viewed as a whole more than justify the position.
  5. Can a reasonable person see such value in it that it should surmount the rules of original thinking.
  6. Is it reality that qualifies as unspoken rules, exposes a deeper politic, or so goes against the grain of conventional wisdom that makes it dangerous to the author to expose?
• I am aware of the fact that WP takes on a certain burden by publishing original thought. But if you establish rules, strict rules, by which such OT can be included you will eliminate political diatribe. You will be able to justify to those who would attack you that such articles are of such value, meet such strict requirements, that it would be censorship to delete them.

  One has to admit that the impression WP gives as being open and free is at odds in rare cases with the OT rule. It opens the encyclopedia to the accusation that it has as members thought police who strike well founded ideas. Is the growing view among many other forums that the encyclopedia is dominated by those who will not allow dangerous ideas more destructive than rasing the ire of those who are threatened by truth?

  There is a difference between being ungovernable and being averse to rules which can be considered extreme and repressive.

  Please discuss the views at length and do not reject it by knee jerk reaction. I have no doubt that in the end it will deleted but at least give me the courtesy of thinking outside the box with an extended discussion before you do it.

  JB2NDR

• Delete as original research. In response to the questions being raised above me, I'll make a handful of comments. Firstly, the article certainly provides information of some kind. As to whether or not it's reliable, it's hard to tell without sources. Perhaps I have my historian-blinkers on, but making a judgement about reliability is much easier when I know where you've got the information from. The second point, insofar as I can speak to it without a legal background, is largely irrelevant. If the article raises a valid point that tertiary sources don't consider, then it needs to be written as a secondary source elsewhere. We're a tertiary source here (that's what being an encyclopedia means), so any valid points raised would need to start life outside before coming in. Where the third point is concerned, I think it probably starts with a relatively clear premise, but that's not the point of an encyclopedia article either. We're presenting facts rather than arguing from premises - we leave that to the sources we cite. The fourth point is patently inaccurate as far as "some are" goes. There are a number of phrases in quotation marks, true, but no indication anywhere of where these phrases come from - leaving the question of whether they are the opinions of an expert or from the fertile mind of the contributor, rendering them as original research. In relation to the fifth point, I consider myself a reasonable person and can see the value in having such issues raised outside of this site - I don't, however, see the point in raising them here to start off with in this form when it goes against policy which already exists. The sixth remark makes little sense to me, as I don't think you're exactly putting yourself in any grave danger by writing anything on this site. Of course, were you to be a judge or a politician and known to be either, you may well be putting your job on the line by writing about judicial activism. As it stands, I don't know. Further, I don't see why expressing a possibly dangerous opinion is a reason to keep an article on Wikipedia. BigHaz 11:40, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
• Thank You - Even though you voted to delete me!

  I greatly appreciate the time you took to consider each of my points.

  Before deleting let me cite the article in response to your first critique.

  As to the second critique the problem with peer review is that they do not allow some information to become tertiary. There are issues that certain professions do not want generally known and will not allow to be published. The a powerful minority of judges and lawyers see the vast increase in judicial discretion as source of power and profit. NO SECONDARY SOURCE will be allowed to publish a critique on it therefore no peer review can be had. Please believe that even if you are a journalist in a completely unrelated field you do not want to end up in court with your name on such an article

  As to the second critique I am not suggesting that all articles should be open to analysis. KEEP the current philosophy intact concerning original articles.

  But why is it that WP must be a traditional encyclopedia on a non-traditional more powerful media? Why can it not find a way to be an encyclopedia++.

  See Downie's Dictionary for LTWR 600 definition of Encyclopedia -

  More in depth study of a person or other topic than a dictionary entry, articles may have attribution and references or be more analytical in the subject-specific works.

• One way is to allow articles that meet the current standards to be allowed a link to an alternative analysis if such analysis meets very strict guidelines for original material. Again, I am suggesting a two tier approach much like a legal appeal. One initial premise and one response both which are credible well thought out and cited. All legal appeals are original material and there are very strict guidelines for how arguments are made. This is to say to those who hold the opinion that original material cannot be distinguished from analysis are not correct. It very well can and has a long history of being done. For those who doubt this please visit your local appeals court and check out an appeal file. It is public record and it is done all of the time. My experiences show me a solution of which others may not be aware.

  As to your third critique starting from an objective premise allows administrators to immediately determine if the article is analysis or opinion. If it is considered analysis then the administrator can evaluate if the logic follows the premise by fact based syllogism. This is the whole point I am trying to make - not all original material should be struck for that reason.

  As to the fourth critique I will site sources - one was sourced as Alexis De Tocqueville but I will make it a proper citation.

  Finally, if someone does not like what WP is doing then you can suffer an increase in vandalism and criticism. I would hope that you would be able to stand up to this. I am not worried about dangerous articles providing the justification for non-deletion, I am worried about dangerous articles being targeted for deletion. Please consider allowing more in-depth study of issues which have not made it, or cannot make it, into the realm of “ authoritative sources”. Let original material stand or fall on facts and analysis and push it into a second tier.

  May I post your comments and mine in the alternative proposals section? --Jb2ndr 12:58, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - original research, but if it gets deleted I would ask it get moved to my userspace as an essay, just to keep it for posterity. --TheM62Manchester 13:04, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - original research, total violation of WP:NOT. Author has attempted to float a proposal, Wikipedia:New proposal for alternative analysis, to turn Wikipedia into a blog for people to float their personal "analysis" of subjects. The response, on the proposal's talk page, is 100% negative. Get a freewebs or blogspot page. Fan-1967 16:18, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
• Comment to author's creator. Articles for deletion debates are not a proper place to debate whether or not Wikipedia's original research policies should be changed. Wikipedia talk:No original research would be an appropriate spot, or the Wikipedia:New proposal for alternative analysis which I believe one of your articles was moved into. Trying to convince us within this discussion to alter the OR policies is like trying to convince a police officer to change your city's speed limit laws while he is giving you a traffic ticket. --Xyzzyplugh 20:56, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Delete doesn't deserve anything more than WP:NOR. That's enough. Get rid of it. Danny Lilithborne 20:56, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Computerjoe's talk 20:56, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per all the above comments. --Richard 01:57, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
• Very strong delete: Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 03:30, 6 August 2006 (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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.