Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Acknowledged and Disputed Victims of Government (Arizona)


 * 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 of the debate was delete. SushiGeek 08:36, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Acknowledged and Disputed Victims of Government (Arizona) & Pennsylvania
Pure soapbox, from the article title on down. Irredeemably POV. Calton | Talk 02:07, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

And add Acknowledged and Disputed Victims of Government (Pennsylvania). --Calton | Talk 02:15, 9 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete, WP:NOT. Roy  boy cr ash  fan  [[Image:Flag of Texas.svg|30px]] 02:12, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as per nom and User:Royboycrashfan. --Saforrest 02:29, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong delete per nom and Roy. My PROD is still up on the Pennsylvania article, but it seems eminently possible that, as is his/her right, the article's creator will remove it, so I don't have any particular problem with Calton's bringing this to AfD.  Joe 03:00, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, since I'd already tagged Arizona before I discovered the existence of Pennsylvania, it seemd only fair to put them together, Prod tag notwithstanding. Didn't intend to step on any toes, just putting them at the same level. --Calton | Talk 04:35, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

These articles fails to violate any WP:NOT criteria as stated:
 * Keep

* 1.1 Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia * 1.2 Wikipedia is not a dictionary * 1.3 Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought * 1.4 Wikipedia is not a soapbox * 1.5 Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links, images, or media files * 1.6 Wikipedia is not a free host, blog, or webspace provider * 1.7 Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information * 1.8 Wikipedia is not a crystal ball * 1.9 Wikipedia is not censored


 * 1) 2 What the Wikipedia community is not

* 2.1 Wikipedia is not a battleground * 2.2 Wikipedia is not an experiment in anarchy * 2.3 Wikipedia is not a democracy * 2.4 Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy

An article that gives an overview about wrongful and disputed convictions in a particular state is valid.

One commentter says the article is "Pure soapbox, from the article title on down. Irredeemably POV." He is free to take issue with particular cases. Because of DNA evidence, the government admits to falsely convicting over 170 innocent people in recent years. Is it POV to accept the government's opinion? Only a small percentage of cases involve DNA evidence, so obviously a large number of other innocent people have presumably been convicted. That is reality, so accept it. --Danras 03:47, 9 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment Notwithstanding what I expect is agreement betwixt us apropos of conviction errors and the like, it should be noted that even a collection of altogether factual information can present POV problems, but that, even assuming arguendo that the pages you've created are written from an altogether neutral point-of-view, they still fail WP:NOT. Notably, your pages, inasmuch as they are simple aggregations of ostensible wrongful convictions/punishments (and concomitant weblinks), seem to be "repositor[ies] of links" and "indiscriminate collection[s] of information".  Joe 03:52, 9 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Reply The links on the pages can be removed. They are there for documentation purposes, but they are not needed for any questions about accuracy can be resolved with user web searches.  The links are not there to advertise particular sites.  Perhaps only a few general links should be listed at the end in an external links section.  The supposedly "indiscriminate collection[s] of information" is highly organized by county and date.  People are more interested in what happens in or near their home county than they are in highly discriminate intellectual distinctions.  Of course there needs to be more state listings and perhaps other national listings as well. --Danras 04:41, 9 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Hey, now it's original research, to boot, Danras. --Calton | Talk 04:35, 9 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Coughs, c'mon Carlton. To clarify that.  The goal of the project is for encyclopedic research.  To include such an article is to verify the claims for research preferences.  Now, that involves your point as to the notabitility of the article.  However, this is sketchy ground for Wikipedia because it involves legal action.  I would delete because of this factor; I am in no way comfortable with anyone citing this for a paper, in which Wikipedia is a growing acceppted reference.  I am not voting, that is a would.  T   K   E  07:42, 9 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. &rArr;    SWAT Jester   [[Image:Flag_of_Iceland.svg|18px|]]  Ready    Aim    Fire!  04:23, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. --Ter e nce Ong [[Image:Flag of Singapore.svg|30px]] 05:12, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete In and of themselves, the subjects in the article MIGHT be notable and worthy of inclusion, if there is genuine controversy over their convictions. But the title itself is POV and the article is little better.  I would advise creation of individual pages assuming the claims in the article are true and someone is capable of writing it NPOV. Montco 05:47, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nomination. --Metropolitan90 05:58, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Metamagician3000 07:24, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete both. —Quarl (talk) 2006-04-09 08:40Z 
 * delete the title itself is POV. delete per nom. --Bachrach44 17:00, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Rename something better, like list of suspected wrongful convictions by jurisdiction. "Victim of government" sounds like political prisoners, not mistakes in criminal justice. Peter Grey 17:05, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete: Wikipedia is not a place for people to fight their legal battles. -- GWO
 * Delete: pure POV trash. --Hetar 17:56, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete per Montco. Carlossuarez46 19:21, 10 April 2006 (UTC)


 * keep from a human rights perspective, this is a helpful article. Munckin 06:41, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete as per Montco. "Victims of government" is inherently POV. (Peter Grey's suggestion might work...) -- Scientizzle 21:34, 14 April 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.