Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Lexington Principles on the Rights of Detainees


 * 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. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 00:59, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

The Lexington Principles on the Rights of Detainees

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Pure, unadulerated use of WP for soapboxing/publicity. Someone's pet political project, full of weasel-worded references to "global experts" but no real sign that anyone's noticed this allegedly global project. Created by and sole contribution of, who created this article two days after the indicated launch date of September 25 2008. Calton | Talk 03:14, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions.  -- the wub  "?!"  12:16, 20 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment. While I can't question any of Calton's preceding comments -- and am confessedly unfamiliar with AfD standards, and reflexively reluctant to delete articles -- I think this a fascinating and admirably-done use of Wikipedia for soapboxing/publicity.  If the article's currently in violation, it could probably be rewritten to fit all our AfD criteria (see e.g.  and .  I'm wondering if you'd permit me to email someone at the project, warn them of the impending deletion, inform them of our concerns, and request that they conform their work to our standards.  It looks like a professional academic operation; I suspect that they'd comply. Agradman talk/contribs 13:34, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Reality check: Wikipedia is not a social justice organization, it is not a publicity agency for good causes -- however defined -- and it is not platform for political change; it is an encyclopedia. Short form: WP exists to document notability, not promote it.
 * The only way for them to "conform their work to our standards" is the hard way -- by actually becoming notable and having some actual impact on the world at large. Shuffling some words around in any article won't do that.
 * As an aside, Agradman, if you don't know what the actual standards for AFD -- which are simply the standards for inclusion on Wikipedia in general -- why are you commenting and what is the actual basis for said comments? --Calton | Talk 14:40, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Calton. I'll stop contributing to AfD's from now on.  :(  Agradman talk/contribs 14:41, 20 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Changed my mind. delete. Writing this clearly took someone a lot of effort, but he/she neglected to communicate why the subject was notable.  Agradman talk/contribs 14:44, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Egads, what a lot of bot/javascript edits without a human actually looking at the article. Looking for sources, I find basically jacksquat - google web yields by number 10 some other search engine's page saying "nope, no results for that".  And I found exactly one news source (comprising all of six sentences) which can be summarized as "Here is a bunch of law professors, some of whom are local, kibbitzing on how they think the U.S. should handle the detainess.".  This makes it clear to me that this is not worthy of coverage in an encyclopedia, even ours.  Delete GRBerry 19:45, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. As mentioned......lots of time put into it (maybe), but it comes back to a fairly non-notable group of law professors giving an unsolicited opinion about something. That NPR gave it a nod isn't sufficient. Niteshift36 (talk) 07:55, 22 July 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.