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


 * 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 keep. This article does not meet any criteria for deletion. –  Rob ert  23:40, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Human rights in the United States
no chance of EVER becoming a useful or encyclopedic article, nothing more than a series of rants and other questionable content--IworkforNASA 14:18, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep and cleanup  Sceptr e  ( Talk  ) 14:21, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep It needs work, but its tagged appropriately. No need to delete it. Gw e rnol 14:33, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
 *  Strong Delete per nom.--Kalsermar 14:48, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep and cleanup Metamagician3000 14:49, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep and cleanup. --Ter e nce Ong 14:54, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per gwernol. --Lockley 16:04, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Obvious keep. Rhobite 18:30, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong keep There are 54 other nations with specific human rights articles. Why not the US? Fishhead64 21:11, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong keep per Fishhead64. It needs to be cleaned up, but that's no reason for outright deletion. BryanG 22:21, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep: if there is something POV in the article, it can be removed. You could also call Human rights in North Korea inherently POV as the North Korean government would contest almost every statement on that page, but it is not; there are simply people with strong opinions about both who may attempt to weasel in or directly broadcast their opinions on the page. Controversial pages may need to be monitored for POV edits but are not inherently POV. — Cuivi é  nen , Tuesday, 11 April 2006 @ 22:23 (UTC)
 * Keep Encyclopedic subject Hawkestone 00:20, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Needs clean-up but decent enough material there to mould into comprehensive article. Cheers, Ian Rose 06:36, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep as many above, as this article does not seem to meet any criteria for deletion, but OTOH I have very little confidence that this article could become and stay POV unless some fair-minded editors do serious work and then monitor it closely for a long while. I'll volunteer to do what I can on this, but I think it will take more than one of us. It seems to me that earlier editors have had a serious axe to grind on this issue and the thing needs to be rewritten from the ground up.--Deville (Talk) 12:37, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
 * This gives me confidence, somewhat, that the article may actually ever approach a balanced POV. I watered down my vote accordingly.--Kalsermar 16:22, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep &mdash; No brainer. Being willing to air their dirty laundry is a good indicator of a nation that takes human rights seriously. &mdash; RJH 18:56, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep &mdash; Agree with other "Keep" votes above but also there is a debate about the length of the "Human Rights" section in the United States article which currently constitutes 9% of the total article length. We need a place to move that text to.  This article is the obvious candidate.  Maintaining NPOV is a huge challenge but I am willing to join with Deville in trying to maintain an NPOV.  See my edits on the "Human Rights" section of the United States article for an example of my work. Richard 09:52, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. It is an important topic; however, I must agree with nom that the current article is hopelessly POV.  Even the lead section seems to say, The U.S. thinks it has human rights, but it doesn't.  I would be willing to help rebuild an article from scratch to treat the topic from a more neutral standpoint.  Perhaps Human rights in the United States/temp.  — MSchmahl… 02:26, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong keep. Any of the mentioned reasons does not qualify under Deletion_policy which has very specific policies. I guess this is pretty clear, I'll remove the nomination.--Donut2 13:09, 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.