Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Living Bill of Rights

 This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was delete all three articles. Joyous 02:26, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)

Living Bill of Rights and Living U.S. Constitution and Living Declaration of Independence
Source of US constitution, which is already in Wikisource. DJ Clayworth 18:01, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete don't see why this couldn't be speedied, even if it isn't strictly within guidelines. Smoddy (t) (e) 18:34, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete It's Alive! It's Alive! Andrew Lenahan - St ar bli nd 19:04, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)

The intent of putting the Living Bill of Rights, the Living U.S. Constitution, and the Living Declaration of Independence up is to create pages where the open editing process of wiki can be applied to these documents in a way that is both original to the Wikipedia and allows the original documents to maintain their integrity on the Wikipedia. I see this as a perfect forum for a uniquely democratic form for discussing government, and would like to see the entry evolve.

I would be interested discussing whether or not this is acceptable for Wikipedia. If this is not the correct forum for that discussion please let me know here.

Many thanks. --Becket Bowes 19:27, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * That's an admirable aim, but it's got nothing to do with encyclopedias. Let's continue this discussion at your talk page. DJ Clayworth 19:34, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete. Agree with DJ Clayworth. Demi 20:05, 2005 Mar 9 (UTC)
 * Kill it. Delete. The plan is interesting, though. RidG (talk)  20:50, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, unencyclopedic pet project. -- John Fader (talk &bull; contribs) 22:05, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete as above, WP's not the place for this sort of experiment. Wyss 00:39, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, since it's already in Wikisource. --Deathphoenix 01:13, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete. Intriguing, but non-encyclopedic. Binadot 04:18, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Intriguing, but its covered at Wikisource. Delete. Tygar 06:42, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete I don't mean to seem unfriendly toward an interesting and well-intentioned effort, but it is clearly inappropriate. Technically it might not be appropriate even for a personal user page unless you can show relevance to a Wikipedia-related purpose, but on the other hand users can do what they like on their user pages within very broad limits, so I'd say Becket Bowes can go for it there if he wants to. Here are some policies I think apply: Dpbsmith (talk) 16:51, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * "it is a participatory document that is meant to be both read and rewritten" means it is a personal essay, even if it is a group personal essay, and original research.
 * Wikipedia is not a discussion forum
 * Wikipedia is not a free Wiki host. As it says there, "If you are interested in using the wiki technology for a collaborative effort on something else, even if it is just a single page, there are many sites (such as Wikicities, SeedWiki or Riters.com) that provide wiki hosting (free or for money)." Dpbsmith (talk) 16:51, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.