Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Justifiable Insurrection

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 No consensus, default to keep

[edit] Justifiable Insurrection

Justifiable Insurrection (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

neologism. Google search in quotes "justifiable insurrection" shows 67 ghits, none of which are related to the topic at hand. Author has been using the term on the Supreme Court of the United States article to push a POV criticizing the court, replete with weasel words.

Refs cited in the article do nothing to support the term "justifiable insurrection", without significant original research and synthesis. WP:NOT for Essays. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 19:09, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

• Weak Keep This could be legitimate, or at the very least worthy of a stub. With that being said, needs some major clean up, more sources, and anything that is remotely close to OR or POV needs to be removed. If anything is left, then keep. Mr Senseless (talk) 20:07, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

• Swatjester may have some sort of problem using Google. I typed in "justifiable insurrection" (without the quotation marks) and nine of the first ten entries were very much related to the topic at hand. Martel,C (talk) 20:13, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

• Swatjester is concerned (if I understand him correctly) that the title of the article, "Justifiable Insurrection" is OR or POV because the citations do not use that particular term. I checked another wikipedia site, Separation of church and state and looked at the 34 citations in the "References" section. Not one of the 34 endnotes uses the term indicated in the article's title. So what? Does s.j. conclude that both articles are ipso facto OR? Martel,C (talk) 20:13, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

• Swatjester is not himself providing support for his accusations. Perhaps he would be willing to provide a few cases in point when he asserts that the U.S. Supreme Court article -- subsection on judicial usurpation -- is "replete with weasel words." Also, as per the same article, I wonder what s.j. is referring to when he asserts use of the term (justifiable insurrection?) "to push a POV criticizing the court?" I could find no use whatsoever of this term at that location. Martel,C (talk) 20:13, 25 February 2008 (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.