Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/All white jury

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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The result was Nomination Withdrawn. Keep. Bfigura (talk) 05:10, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] All white jury

All white jury (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Quite non-neutral. To quote from the intro: "...a media term used to describe a jury in a criminal trial composed of all Caucasians (often all male) who either find a minority guilty despite an apparent lack of evidence...". While I'm sure racial injustices in the judicial system have a place on wikipedia, this article simply isn't it. (Also, there's a slight lack of reliable sources to verify the notability of this phrase in the media). Bfigura (talk) 04:07, 25 September 2007 (UTC) Nomination withdraw per Richard Arthur Norton. I'd close, but there's still a delete vote. --Bfigura (talk) 04:51, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

  • Deleteper nom ~ Joe Jklin (T C) 04:08, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
    • I'll change my vote to keep since the consensus seems to be that this article can be more than a dictionary def. and still stay NPOV. I'm not sure it can be but I'll give it a shot. Just a suggestion but the term all-black jury has been consistently used, especially during the O.J. drama so maybe there is a better name to move it to that is more NPOV.~ Joe Jklin (T C) 05:02, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong delete as nominator. For all the reasons above. Bfigura (talk) 04:09, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep and reference better Very notable term that needs a good article with examples of media usage, and case studies of notable examples. If you don't like the existing article, flag it for improvement. Deletion means your uncomfortable with the topic in this encyclopedia. The usage isnt biased, its a term about perceived bias. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 04:21, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Comment Please AGF. I nom'd it because I think it's irreparably non-neutral. Since the only content present is a dicdef at the moment, I don't see anything to merge to either Racism or Racial bias in the american judicial system. --Bfigura (talk) 04:29, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Comment I always assume good faith, I am just reminding everyone in the discussion the difference between flagging and article for improvement, and asking for its deletion. Again it isn't a neutral term at all, its a term about bias, its inherently biased. For instance every derogatory word in Wikipedia is biased, and each still has an article. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 04:47, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Comment You're correct. Cleanup would have been a better remedy. I'm withdrawing the nom. --Bfigura (talk) 04:49, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep but definately needs to be improved. I agree with Norton .....Todd#661 04:28, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Keep I wasn't out to write an attack article just an article on a term I see used over and over in new articles and history books. --The Emperor of Wikipedia 04:41, 25 September 2007 (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.