Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Human values


 * 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.  MBisanz  talk 10:04, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Human values

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

The article's main author reverted attempts by myself and another editor to redirect to a much better and more comprehensive article at Value (personal and cultural). I'm seeking a consensus for delete & redirect. Reasons: this article is biased and the references are almost useless. It fails WP:POV, WP:SOAP, WP:VER andy (talk) 14:26, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete seems like soapboxing and WP:OR. Un-encyclopaedic mini-essay.  Moondyne 14:35, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - wash it with SOAP. AlexTiefling (talk) 14:51, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep NOT CENSORED. - Guys the page has just started, you have to give it a chance to refine, it seems to me that something in the article offends you, what is it? Where are your Human Values —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tonymynd (talk • contribs) 15:40, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The page is more than a year old, not "just started", and it hasn't improved in that time. andy (talk) 15:48, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
 * WP:NOTCENSORED has nothing to do with it. This isn't about obscenity, privacy, or any other such concern. It's simply that this article is a violation of the policies WP:OR, WP:SOAP, WP:V and WP:SPAM, and possibly others. In short, Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. (Or, for that matter, unoriginal but unpublished thought.) AlexTiefling (talk) 16:10, 4 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete as this seems to be soapboxing as well as possible spamming (seems to be promoting various entities). MuZemike  ( talk ) 15:57, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete:  the universal concept that preserves and enhances Homo Sapiens. Damn it, my enemies are everywhere these days.  But this is classic original research as it stands now. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 16:12, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Nom is 100% correct in calling it a soapbox full of original research and POV, no matter how well intended it is. P HARMBOY  (moo) (plop) 16:59, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
 *  Keep & Protect WP:NOTDEMOCRACY Human values meant to be kept becasue that is what we are, and this values is what maintains peace within us. (Please use respecful vocabulary), Thank you for you all support in expanding and refining the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tonymynd (talk • contribs) — Tonymynd (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * I know you mean well, but the wording of your input reinforces the argument against it. That "human values" is what maintains peace is not a neutral point and not a proven fact.  The Cold War demonstrated that Mutually assured destruction and fear works pretty well too, so the premise is very debateable.  And WP:NOTDEMOCRACY wouldn't apply here.  We are discussing, not voting.  P HARMBOY  (moo) (plop) 17:23, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Going Rogue Please note that Tonymynd has twice changed the AFD headers, and the next stunt like that will likely result in a block.  P HARMBOY  (moo) (plop) 18:42, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Do you have the athurity to block me?
 * If you do, Why are you inderectly assuming that I'm an expert on editing pages in Wikipedia?
 * Thank you for giving me recomendations in how to improve my skills contributions. I really apreciate the positive aproach towards my flaws. --Tonymynd (talk) 19:08, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
 * You were warned twice, which is usually one time too many. If I though you were an expert, I would have just dropped your name on the vandal desk and watched you get blocked, so I did assume good faith but a stern warning is still reasonable for this type of infraction.  You already are getting the benefit of the doubt, and 5 days to fix the article during this AFD.  Please read Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions to help you make your arguments more pursuasive. I would also suggest reading the links above, like WP:SOAPBOX, WP:POV, WP:VER since they are the actual reasons the article is nominated.  WP:OR and WP:SPAM are also good reads and used in this discussion.  I would additionally recommend the two guidelines you used as a keep rationale.  While they don't apply here, a better understanding of them is beneficial.  I hope this helps.  P HARMBOY  (moo) (plop) 19:30, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete and Redirect to Value (personal and cultural), per above (WP:NOT and WP:NPOV, etc). The article is unreferenced, and a POV stub. I was suprised to see that it has survived unchanged on Wikipedia for over a year. I would like to see an article on this, using referenced research from religion and the social sciences. Right now I think a redirect to Value (personal and cultural) is a good idea, since that page already has some coverage and can be expanded. Danski14(talk) 18:52, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Friend, if you think deeper and check the link i posted below you will realize that redirecting [Human Values] doesn't make any sense, because [Human Values] overrides any individual value or other cultures values, because the conservation of the species is avove anything else becasue with this value broken we simply would not exist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tonymynd (talk • contribs) 19:42, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

University Center for Human Values from Princeton University 304 Louis Marx Hall Princeton, NJ 08544 (609) 258-4798 --Tonymynd (talk) 19:37, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
 *  Definitely a Keep!: Working on sources to comply: One good source I found, and I'm having people from this university to support me:
 * Great, work on it. Until then, this is the second time I have stated that you can not put "KEEP" on an intro line more than one time in a discussion.  Please read WP:AFD if you have any questions about this guideline that makes this clear.   P HARMBOY  (moo) (plop) 19:43, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you for assuming good faith first, becasue that exacly my intention. Now starting to get it, ok, Yes I'm doing my home work to support the existance of this article. I just need time to gather all information. And know I have a better perspective on how to structure the article and pay atention to the WP guidelines.


 * Comment This needs a lot of clean-up and sure feels like a blog or soapbox of some sort. I suggest the newby editor be given the article as a userpage and encouraged to get more familiar with editing here. Creating articles is WP:bold; but messy and unneeded articles waste your time which seems a shame. If this, or a similar article, is to survive it needs to be clear about what it is, show a compatability with policies and other articles and also needs to be reader-friendly. This article I'm not quite sure what it's about or what I learned in the process - as the nom pointed out does it really add anything not in already existing articles? If so, what? -- Banj e  b oi   03:40, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I doubt if userfying it will help and it may make things worse by encouraging this editor to think he's basically on the right track. He's not. He posts OR articles "in the name of Jesus" - he sees WP as a platform for his views. It's worth noting that of the three articles he's posted so far, two are in AfD and the other one is prodded.


 * Keep, otherwise redirect; this article may be able to improve, however, if it doesn't, just redirect it to Value (personal and cultural). -- IRP ☎ 16:28, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you I don't support redirection, perhaps a Merge
 * You can't WP:Merge and delete. It violates the GFDL.   D ENNIS B ROWN  (T) (C) 23:18, 7 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Question How long the AfD should last? who has the authority to Keep or Delete?
 * Please read WP:AFD. It explains the whole AFD process.   D ENNIS B ROWN  (T) (C) 23:15, 7 November 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.