Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Human rights in the United States

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 keep. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:49, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Human rights in the United States

Reason why the page should be deleted: Because Wikipedia is not a soapbox for America bashing and the page contains mostly essays of original research. (unsigned comment by Bertly).

• Keep. That page is a valid article. Wikipedia does not pander to the POV of one person. Gwk 00:09, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and cleanup. While there are good reasons for such an article, there are significant POV problems with the article. Capitalistroadster 00:13, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, of course. Interesting that the nominator should single out this one out of the 14 members of Category:Human rights by country. - Mustafaa 00:14, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep seems like a bad faith vfd to me. America-bashing? Or do you don't like the fact that the US isn't as perfect as it makes out to be, for some reason? -- Natalinasmpf 00:17, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy keep, a valid article on a valid topic. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. -- Joolz 00:22, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, if this nomination is made in good faith it's evidence of ignorance of the function of VFD and of the policies of Wikipedia. Expedite removal of the unsightly template, please. Bishonen | talk 00:43, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Keep Encyclopedic. --Lee Hunter 00:45, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, it's absolutely ridiculous to claim that an encyclopedia should not have an article on Human rights in the United States!! Resolve your NPOV issues as they should be resolved, which is not here. Dcarrano 01:01, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep and ban nominator for this disruptive attempt at censorship. We don't need to keep this listed for days on end. Why on earth would anyone want to delete this article, except to try and bring Wikipedia into line with their political stance? — Trilobite (Talk) 01:02, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
• Strong keep — possibly also consider action against nominator for abusing the vfd process. Pakaran 01:19, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep -- I think perhaps Bertly doesn't like the facts that might eventually land in this obviously encyclopedic article. BrandonYusufToropov 01:52, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep -- The article needs a lot of cleanup but is a proper subject that should be addressed Reboot 04:09, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy keep. Invalid nomination. WP:POINT. Kaibabsquirrel 03:50, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy keep, trivially encyclopedic and valid subject, nomination probably invalid, incoherent with the idea that it "badly needs work" (you really destroy what needs work ?), WP:POV and WP:POINT. Rama 09:26, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, clearly an encyclopedic topic, if there is a concern over the article's POV, the solution is editing, not deletion. —Stormie 11:20, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep — A fundamental precept of the U.S. constitution. RJH 14:53, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
• STRONG DELETE Just more america bashing liberal crap that has no place o this venerable website - 152.163.101.12 14:55, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Note: This address is an AOL proxy. While the address has made quite a few contributions, it is impossible to determine how many the user has made, or to determine if this vote is valid. Pakaran 20:52, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

• Keep Could do with a bit of a tidy though. Terwilliger 15:00, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
• keep please this nomination seems invalid to me too so speedy keep it Yuckfoo 18:07, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
• Calm down. Last time I checked it was not policy to yell at or ban newcomers the moment they complain about an article. As for the article, I think the intro is a bit jingoist myself. Gazpacho 02:21, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep At least the new user managed to state a ground (OR), so I'll assume good-faith. Of course, an obviously enclycopedic topic, and the ground is quite wrongly applied. Xoloz 03:27, 13 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.