Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reverse Discrimination (EU Law)


 * 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 no consensus. Views are split between keeping as is, or moving to draft. Either activity does not require deletion. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  19:45, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Reverse Discrimination (EU Law)

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

It seems the whole thing is based upon one world press blog by some bloke on the internet who in fact created this article.

Thus it fails wp:n and wp:or as it relies on wp:primary analysis by a non expert, published in a wp:sps format. By an wp:sps account (thus may al fall foul of all kinds of wp:not). Slatersteven (talk) 13:09, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

*Delete, notability has not been established. (Bonus minus points for Hardly any content. Copyright issues.) CT55555 (talk) 14:42, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
 * With credit to Willbb234, I withdraw my delete. CT55555 (talk) 21:22, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:15, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:53, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
 * weak keep, , . In just a couple of minutes I found 2 papers and a book, all by different authors, which discuss the topic in depth. Obvious issues with the article, but notablity is not an issue in itself. Would suggest writing more about this on reverse discrimination. Willbb234 17:13, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
 * keep: Sources in the lede were extremely weak, but I found some academic articles on the subject and added them. These are in addition to what User:Willbb234 has found. Perhaps there are more sources in the blanked copyright section. Anaxagoras17 (talk) 22:59, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Having found one version of the blanked version, I agree that the topic is notable, but is poorly written. Lots of sources cited, but there may be some original research.  It would be better to improve the article, rather than delete it.   Anaxagoras17 (talk) 02:05, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment Not exactly sure what the point is here, the article has been blanked due to copyright concerns. A keep result here won't restore the article itself. ValarianB (talk) 19:11, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Yeah, should the copyright issue be resolved, so we can see the article, before we debate this further? CT55555 (talk) 19:29, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
 * You can look at the whole article in the page history for now if you want to see what is being hidden. I've left a message to try and speed up the process and make sure we have usable permission for the text. VernoWhitney (talk) 02:02, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
 * OK wow. For anyone else who shared my ignorance, this is a 60,489 bytes (i.e. large) article with 70 citations. CT55555 (talk) 03:15, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment Copyright uncertainty satisified, so the article has been unblanked. Please resume your regularly scheduled editing. VernoWhitney (talk) 23:45, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 ( d  c̄ ) 15:36, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Draftify. The topic is notable, but the article is an embarrassment: a random aggregation of what appear to be random factoids and quotations mashed together with misspellings. Maybe somebody competent can use it as material for writing an actual article.  Sandstein   05:31, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep — This is a very salient situation that actually exists and impacts real people with real families. The sourcing is unimpeachable and the article needs to be kept.XavierItzm (talk) 11:32, 27 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Send to draft per earlier. This needs to be worked on out of mainspace if it is to be kept. ValarianB (talk) 12:40, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep Sending stuff that already passes GNG to draftspace decreases the chances that the content is improved.★Trekker (talk) 13:48, 5 June 2022 (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.