Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Social floor


 * 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   keep. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:25, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Social floor

 * – ( View AfD View log )

This article in a nutshell states the following: "A social floor is something that all people are entitled to. Here's what a social floor includes and what it may or may not include. Here's why it's right. Some people don't agree, but they're wrong." Wikipedia is not a place for advocacy of any particular point of view, and this article would need to be completely blown up and started over to come even remotely close to being NPOV. POV issues aside, I find minimal reliable, non-editorial coverage of either "social floor" or the related "social minimum". redacted; see below &mdash; KuyaBriBri Talk 17:07, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions.  -- Jclemens-public (talk) 17:11, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
 * So despite the Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy&#39;s article on the subject being cited five times here in this very article, you didn't find it? And you didn't find Jeremy Waldron&#39;s treatise on the subject?  Or Jan Narveson&#39;s?  Leonard Marsh&#39;s definition of the subject may be hard to find, but those three aren't. Uncle G (talk) 01:27, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment I find this article's style in very poor taste. It reads, well, like an essay written by a high school student, rather than a dispassionate encyclopedic treatment of the concept, its history, and its role. Whether this is sufficient for deletion under WP:NOT, or whether somebody wants to take a go at fixing it, is the real question. Suffice to say, I think few would miss it if we deleted this article as it stands now. Ray  Talk 05:43, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I apologize for the late response; I've been busy IRL. To answer Uncle G's question, I did see the Stanford article and the other sources cited on the page; however, those and the others I did find are all advocacy pieces that essentially state the same thing that this article does: "This is what it is and why it should be done; some people don't agree and here are the reasons why they don't agree, but here are the reasons why they're wrong." I've taken a closer look at the sources and now believe that a decent quality article may be written on this subject; however, in its present state I still believe it is so hopelessly POV that it needs TNT. &mdash; KuyaBriBri Talk 20:11, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Surely it's a good thing that our article says essentially the same thing as reliable sources? That's the whole idea of our policies on verifiability and original research. Much of our article is far from "hopelessly POV", consisting of reporting what others have written about the subject, with attribution, so is perfectly acceptable content. If you think that any conclusions are drawn incorrectly that that can be easily fixed by removing a sentence or two rather than throwing away all of that good content. In other words, keep the "A social floor is something that all people are entitled to. Here's what a social floor includes and what it may or may not include. Here's why [some people think that] it's right. Some people don't agree." and ditch the small part of the article that says "but they're wrong". Phil Bridger (talk) 20:34, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:14, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Our editing policy is to improve articles in situ rather than to delete them and start again. Colonel Warden (talk) 00:29, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

keep (a) I think the nominator did not quite capture the meaning in their summary. The page does not say "A social floor is something that all people are entitled to" but rather "A social floor, also called a social minimum, is the concept that there is baseline level of social services and human rights to which every human being should have access." one is POV, the second isn't. So the POV objection is not valis. (b) a page being POV is not grounds for deletion anyway, only for rewriting. (c) a cursory search on Google finds tens of thousands of hits for social floor, including presentations at the UN, so it is clearly notable. Francis Bond (talk) 04:35, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
 * comment This is so clearly a keep that I would urge the nominator to take a moment to reflect and perhaps be a little slower to propose deletion in the future Francis Bond (talk)


 * Keep but requires a lot of editingLm 997 (talk) 16:02, 18 December 2010 (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.