Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Equal access to justice


 * 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. One of the 'keep' arguments says to take out the only thing which isn't or could be better covered at, say, social equality and related articles. As David points out, the deletion of this page does not prejudice against an actual article. --Sam Blanning(talk) 15:37, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Equal access to justice
No original research,not for stuff made up one day. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ikanreed (talk • contribs)


 * Keep. It's verifiable and expandable. It's not OR because information about the concept has been published. --Ginkgo100 talk · contribs · e@ 20:20, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. In its current form it seems to be a barely-disguised plug for Antoinette Sedillo Lopez, which itself looks to be an unsourced vanity page. Kickaha Ota 21:09, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak delete. Per this link, the Equal Access to Justice Act probably deserves an article but I'm not so sure about this one. -AED 21:29, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. I'm with Ginkgo100, but take out the reference to Lopez unless it's verifiable, cited and in the context of the many other advocates. Bondegezou 16:37, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. If at some point someone is prepared to write an article documenting the use of the phrase "equal access to justice", the loss of this material will not stop them.  There is almost no semantic content beyond what the literal definition of the words might imply, and obviously no sources or assertions of notability.   The current article seems to be a back-formation by someone with an interest in inserting material about Lopez (see this, especially), and combined with the poor writing (whatever "finer points of justice" might be, they are not something people would "access"), gives me no confidence the original editor has a firm grasp on whatever it is they are trying to report on. - David Oberst 03:51, 12 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.