Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Legislating morality


 * 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. Sjakkalle (Check!)  14:28, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Legislating morality
Delete.The topic is inherently POV--people in favor of "legislating morality" would never describe it that way. (For what it's worth, I more agree with the article's POV than not.) Nareek 13:30, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom, noting the legislating against crimes with a victim is jsut as much to do with morality. JPD (talk) 13:50, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nomination. Sandstein 18:45, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge/Redirect The link might be helpful, but information would be more appropriately found under "victimless crime(s)." -- ZincOrbie 19:23, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete: Strongly agreed that implied definition is faulty and POV. Legislation in a democracy is inescapably about morality, whether or not an identifiable victim is involved. Kestenbaum 22:47, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as inherent POV.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 01:24, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete: Seems to duplicate victimless crime, but the problem is that "victimless" is subjective. There could a great article, however, on the fact that legislation and morality don't mix as well as we would like. Peter Grey 04:02, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Its no more inherently POV than Pro-life, etc.  It just doesn't have a good article at present.  Redirection might be a good temporary measure if no one is writing the article, nor fixing the current one.  JeffBurdges 17:11, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete its POV is inherent in what qualifies as "morality" not that someone claims that legislating it (whatever it is) is right/wrong. One could (arguably add or delete) gun control, euthanasia, sodomy, Sarbanes-Oxley, fraud, consumer protection, welfare, conscription, contraception, abortion, free speech, libel, Communications Decency Act, state religion, etc. to/from the list -- and some of these are just US-specific. Carlossuarez46 19:06, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Thats not an objection to having an article on the subject of laws based upon morality, just to this particular stub article as it is written. A good article should list many of the subjects of such laws, in various cultures, and should also point out that almost all cultures have had at least some "legislated morality".  JeffBurdges 18:41, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
 * The term "legislating morality" is neither slang nor uncommon. Its legitimacy for reference should based on that. Albeit NPOV in usage, it is close enough to victimless crime for a redirect to that article. So although I see the value of it as reference, I don't see how it justifies its own article. ZincOrbie 19:09, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I'd buy that, its up to the articles authors to write an article which can stand on its own, if that is posssible. Redirection is fine, solong as the victimless crime article mentions "legislating morality" as a term.  JeffBurdges 17:21, 5 March 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.