Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of panels making life or death decisions


 * 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. clear consensus JForget  00:31, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

List of panels making life or death decisions

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Original article is a rambling Essay, and POV pushing. Has some good references which could be included in other related articles, but this just does not stand up as an encyclopedia article. Leuko (talk) 22:47, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: regarding article re-write - basically a republication of the single original article from which it is sourced. This version is no more encyclopedic. Leuko (talk) 23:06, 15 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment - I was notified about this, but it isn't "my" article. If you look at the history, 209.6.238.201 added the content. I made a paltry redirect to Death panel, after the IP accidentally made the redirect request at WP:AFC, and not WP:AFC/R. My !vote is for it to redirect to Political positions of Sarah Palin, per Death panel. Lәo(βǃʘʘɱ) 22:54, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Political positions of Sarah Palin, per Leo. Regards, Javért  ☆ 23:02, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep (Change to Abstain, see 2nd comment below), possibly rename. Although I originally attempted to expand the Death panel redirect, I was shouted down for daring to do so for what seemed like WP:OWNership issues. However, the main source of the article makes clear that there actually are panels which do make life or death decisions about people's lives, in both medicinal and criminal matters, and other sources I've added back up this theme. Whatever the best title might be, the topic is thoroughly sourced, so I fail to see what makes it an AFD concern. -- 209.6.238.201 (talk) 23:02, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Also, I want to point out that the article neither endorses nor opposes these panels or their work in anyway, despite all the NPOV claims to the contrary being throw around here. -- 209.6.238.201 (talk) 11:56, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment In light of the WP:POINTy re-write and re-organization of the article by User:Hauskalainen, who strongly supports its deletion and which he claims he did in order to ensure "clarity" so it would get deleted, I'm withdrawing my support for keeping the article. I'm almost tempted to vote Delete after reading User:Hauskalainen's version, but in any case, I have enough additional sources now that I can write a new article on a related topic without the WP:SYNTH concerns which grew out of the combination of medial and criminal subject in the article's first source. -- 209.6.238.201 (talk) 22:50, 15 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Redirect to Sarah Palin or Delete as the criteria for inclusion is too vague. Is a refugee review board included? What about the EPA? FDA? Pburka (talk) 23:42, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Those might indeed be good inclusions. Feel free to add your sourced content regarding how such panel decisions led directly to the death of the individuals involved to the article. -- 209.6.238.201 (talk) 23:51, 13 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Weak delete - The title is overly general. If the content warrants an article, it would appropriately be call "Death panel". However, the content is not cohesive and borders on synth. While "death panel" currently directs to Political positions of Sarah Palin, I'm not sure "List of panels making life or death decisions" is a likely search term for the content found there. --Evb-wiki (talk) 23:59, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, yes, the WP:OWNership of Death panel is very unfortunate. I expect this will blow over in six months or so. Meanwhile, the current title is roughly OK per WP:TIND. I am not synthesizing anything, but have presented a reliable English source which connects the dots between various worldwide death panels. -- 209.6.238.201 (talk) 00:09, 14 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete with No redirect This seems like original research, a thinly-veiled POV political statement, and a potential magnet for nasty controversy. I do not see any compelling reason that the collection of "panels" captured by this list is a topic notable in and of itself...I would need multiple reliable sources to justify this before I would recommend a keep.  I see no compelling reason to redirect to Palin--it's a long search term that no one is going to type in anyway.  Cazort (talk) 00:07, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Seems like WP:OR how? It is reliably sourced. -- 209.6.238.201 (talk)
 * Having individually-cited facts in reliable sources doesn't mean something isn't original research. The term "Death panel" is a WP:Neologism that has a very narrow use in a particular ideology of American politics, and has only started being used recently.  This page's title references a broad, inclusive topic that is much broader than the way in which people are using the term "death panel".  The juxtaposition of the death-penalty issue (which shows absolutely no sourceable connection to the topic in hand...for example this source is cited:  and seems totally off-topic with many of the others, or this source:  discusses an agency's lack of approval for drugs...)  Original Research is often in the juxtaposition and synthesis of material--which is why I'm objecting here.  Cazort (talk) 04:26, 15 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Strong Delete pure original research, esp. combining medical end of life issues with death penalty issues. Until a major reliable secondary source points to articles about this topic, called by this name, with as wide ranging a subject matter as this article, its not for us to say. no redirect needed.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 00:34, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment its been pointed out that the Foreign Policy article sourced does cover this subject in this general a manner. having noted that, i still think our article is OR. the FP article has a very different tone to it than our article. but, this reference should stand somewhere, perhaps the sarah palin policy section, to show the public debate around the idea. my thanks to who pointed this out below, and a mea culpa for not checking the references first! i hope that doesnt show me as having undue bias. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 05:41, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't understand how a topic can be covered by a WP:RS and be WP:OR at the same time. "Tone" issues are not a matter for an AFD; if you have issues with my gloss please take it up at Talk:List of panels making life or death decisions. -- 209.6.238.201 (talk) 06:26, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:OR often isn't so much about sourcing of individual facts. In this case, it's about collecting sourced or sourceable material into one place in a way that is particularly unnatural and is not backed up by sources.  So, the pieces may be sourceable, but the whole is not.  For example, as I pointed out above, there is a lack of sources justifying the comparison between the theoretical "death panels" and the death penalty, or between "death panels" and the material cited about the drug approval process (which doesn't refer to the main topic of this article at all).  Cazort (talk) 04:31, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, sorry if you didn't bother to read the references. Here you go! -- 209.6.238.201 (talk) 00:39, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Just to be clear, Foreign Policy magazine has been in print for 39 years, and is certainly "a major reliable secondary source" as far as I can tell. -- 209.6.238.201 (talk) 01:01, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * And, just to be even more clear, the story in Foreign Policy doesn't say what you'd like to pretend it says. See Talk:Death panel for details. JamesMLane t c 02:26, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I beg your pardon, but it certainly does. -- 209.6.238.201 (talk) 06:09, 14 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete appears to be a POV attempt at a political statement. I can't imagine how this could be built up without original research or contentious definitions of life and death.  Them  From  Space  01:27, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * POV isn't a proper argument for AFD. The article contains no original research, and I fail to understand what POV this supposedly reflects. -- 209.6.238.201 (talk) 06:09, 14 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete with No redirect – This unstructured "list" relies very heavily on a single source and is not written from a neutral point of view. By the way, as shown in its history, "death panel" redirected to America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 for about a month until today when it was moved to the Sarah Palin political positions article amid a great flurry of edits. —ADavidB 02:17, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * It relies on nearly a dozen sources. -- 209.6.238.201 (talk) 06:09, 14 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete, no reason for a redirect for a term no one will search for. One article in one magazine took Palin's "death panel" charge as the springboard for thinking about groups of people making life-or-death decisions.  That story itself referred only to "something akin to death panels", but, even if it had been more in keeping with anon IP 209's desires, one such story wouldn't mean that we need to have a separate Wikipedia article about it. JamesMLane t c 02:26, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Again, simply not true, the article, entitled "Real Life Death Panels" explores the whole spectrum of death panels worldwide, including what it calls "literal death panels." The Reuters source also discusses actual death panels in California. -- 209.6.238.201 (talk) 06:15, 14 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete. Well-written article, but Wikipedia is not a soapbox. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 02:42, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:IDONTLIKEIT isn't much of an AFD reason either -- 209.6.238.201 (talk) 06:09, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * When did I say I didn't like it? I said it's a well-written article; it just doesn't follow Wikipedia guidelines. And it appears you just don't understand the difference between an encyclopedia article and an essay (the latter is where WP:OR comes in, even though it's sourced; it's all about the presentation). By the way, your stance might be taken a little more seriously if you registered a username. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 06:31, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Again, everything is sourced with reliable sources, so your WP:OR charge is plainly ludicrous. Whether you like the topic or not, would be nice if you could come up some actual reasoning acceptable per the deletion policy before simply adding your !Vote here. -- 209.6.238.201 (talk) 06:38, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * What is your problem? It seems like you're throwing a tantrum because no one agrees with you. We have all pointed out why we feel the article should be deleted, but you're just ignoring it and taking an "I'm right; end of story" attitude. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 18:08, 14 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Strong delete huge WP:POV problem essay and masses of WP:OR, as well as being a troll magnet. Shouldn't be a redirect as it is a highly unlikely term. WP:SOAPBOX and WP:TRUTH issues. Article has no encyclopaedic value. Verbal chat  07:27, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * ??? It's not an advertisement for these panels, nor does it quote any of them nor any of their members, so I don't see how it fall under WP:SOAP. Nor does the article support or oppose such groups, so where is the alleged POV? Theres absolutely no original research whatsoever, and I haven't seen any trolling in the dozen hours of the page's existence. -- 209.6.238.201 (talk) 10:44, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I would answer, but WP:DNFTT disallows further elaboration. Verbal chat  13:09, 14 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Strong delete for NPOV, soapboxing, and WP:OR. Everything that a WP article should not be!
 * Of course the irony is that the advanced care directives that Palin was so against funding would have removed the need for many thousands of death panels. These panels being the formal and informal meetings of doctors and relatives and sometimes lawyers and judges, that have no choice but to get together to decide the fate of people who have NOT made their preferences regarding treatment at the end of life known and who are not able to make their preferences known. Having the patient think in advance what could happen and give clear guidance to their doctors for their future treatment is surely the best way to avoid these unhappy panels being formed in the first place.Hauskalainen (talk) 00:25, 17 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete; this is a mere WP:COATRACK for POV-pushing, and incapable of being made WP:NPOV. -- The Anome (talk) 11:27, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Note This editor was either unwilling or unable to back up these claims when asked for an explanation. -- 209.6.238.201 (talk) 12:14, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I enlarged upon my reasons for my opinions above on my talk page; I'm sorry you didn't like them. -- The Anome (talk) 12:40, 14 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete; Concur this artile is a WP:COATRACK and NPoVSimonm223 (talk) 12:06, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete, for all the above reasons. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 13:36, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. This is a classic example of WP:COATRACK.  I see no need for a redirect, as this title is too long and complex to ever be a valid search term. Wilhelm Meis (Quatsch!) 13:51, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  -- – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 18:10, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete for all of the above reasons; poorly-thought-out coatrackery. What is a "life or death decision"? The FAA and NTSB make "life or death decisions". Every decision to raise or lower the speed limit, or to require seatbelts or helmets, is a "life or death decision" on some level. Decisions about food labeling may be "life or death". The decision by a mining company to violate the Clean Water Act could be a "life or death decision" for people drawing water from nearby aquifers. This is a can of worms best re-sealed and shipped back to the partisan blogosphere where it originated. MastCell Talk 18:49, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Gee, I never thought of the United States Supreme Court as a "death panel". Still, this article doesn't live up to the title, since it's not a list.  I suspect that the article creator set out to find examples of a government body similar to a state parole board, and then had to fall back to things that are kind of like a death panel.  Mandsford (talk) 18:56, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per the above discussion, as violating almost all of our core values. I can't ever recall advocating deletion of anything per WP:NPOV, but there is always a first time, and folks, this is it.  This article synthesizes a whole bunch of somewhat related topics and shoves them kicking and screaming into one random list.  I can not figure out how to even start to rescue this one.  Please, someone, put this out of its misery. Bearian (talk) 19:32, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Very VERY bad idea. Ripe for POV abuse. --User:Woohookitty Diamming fool! 21:11, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete POV pushing partisan crap. ► RATEL ◄ 01:36, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete It's really just a random collection of facts and assertions that don't have very much to do with each other.  And the use of the word "panels" (as opposed committees or organizations) seems solely designed to stoke current controversies over the phrase "death panels." --Loonymonkey (talk) 03:43, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per Bearian among others. For the life of me, I can't figure out how this can be shaped into a suitable article. Overbroad, shoehorning disparate elements into a category, WP:SYN and WP:OR. Just fails on several fronts. Pigman ☿/talk 04:29, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The article as written was a shambles, neither reflecting the main thrust of its main source or presenting a neutral POV. I have re-written it to represent more or less what the main article said because it was aggregiously POV in the way it had been assembed. This at least addresses one convern,(POV) thought I still think it right that the article should be deleted notwithstanding my removal of POV. Its content is not notable even though it referenced.--Hauskalainen (talk) 11:52, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The rewrite is a big improvement, but the article is basically just a summary of a non-notable magazine article. Pburka (talk) 23:18, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. I found it informative, however disturbing. It does put a cold, bureaucratic face on government policies that should probably be altered or eliminated. Controversy needs light to resolve itself. -MBHiii (talk) 21:24, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * That's why it should be removed. It's an article for a journal or newspaper, not an encyclopedia. Verbal chat  05:32, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't object to the inclusion of the material; I object to the fact that it was collected under an unnatural topic / name for the article, and that it had a juxtaposition of unrelated topics (political discussion of "death panels" side-by-side with discussion of the death penalty, and drug-approval processes), with no reliable sources linking these topics together into a unified whole--and thus was WP:OR, and that the organization of material represented a narrow POV. I agree with Mbhiii's comments about controversy...and the controversy here is well-sourceable and belongs on wikipedia--just not in the form that this article took.  Cazort (talk) 17:57, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete, no redirect should be necessary (I can't imagine anyone typing that into the search box). It relies to heavily on the FP article, and might have copyright issues. That's apart from the obvious WP:SOAPBOX issues. Lampman (talk) 15:08, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Essentially a summary of a single journal article - while not particularly POV, its claims have not been tested and for the claims it proposes it is in essence therefore a primary source. (The previous version, despite my general agreement with its political position, was unsalvageable.) A single reference to this article and a one- or two- line summary of its findings would be appropriate in another article. Orderinchaos 16:35, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete, but the information should be merged to some places, it's interesting and encyclopædic. Irbisgreif (talk) 21:24, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete, WP:Coatrack, verges on copyvio. Abductive  (reasoning) 11:38, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep Disturbing but informative and important. I believe those who recommend a redirect misinterpret it as a political article because of mention of Sara Palin's tangential association (derivation of title). Recommend rename. --UnicornTapestry (talk) 16:16, 19 September 2009 (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.