Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Travesty of justice


 * 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. Cirt (talk) 01:22, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Travesty of justice

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Unreferenced cover for a tangentially related biased subject RadioFan (talk) 15:30, 1 January 2010 (UTC) However, the article would be preferably better merged with any subject based on legal systems or their criticisms. --YH1975 (talk) 18:46, 1 January 2010 (UTC) --YH1975 (talk) 18:46, 1 January 2010 (UTC) --YH1975 (talk) 18:46, 1 January 2010 (UTC) Everything any person says could be considered biased as it is his point of view, without ofcourse trying to rationally analyse the points being presented. --YH1975 (talk) 18:46, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I completely disagree with the argument as no biases are prominently reflected in the article which simply tries to collate different examples where apparently atleast some people share an opinion that justice was not done. Obviously any other contrary point of view does not cease to exist if simply somebody is categorised as a victim of the legal system.  On the contrary the point of view which you seem to be proposing is based as a automatic defence towards the entitlement victim mentality populace (I am hurt so I deserve a huge compensation) thus bypassing the actual victims of real injustice.
 * Delete. I was just about to PROD it, using the following argument: While subject is commonly known, Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Article does not have any actual real content aside from the definition. In my mind, it is sufficient to mention the subject as part of articles Justice, Injustice, Law and/or similar. Also, due to (some of the) examples, fails neutral point of view. Peasantwarrior (talk) 15:38, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The article does not try to define the subject and is merely a introductory sentence.  If the article lacks content please free to add some as the last time I checked deletionists are not precluded from adding to any article rather than simply disagreeing with content. I agree that it should be merged with any appropriate legal subject.  The applicability of the examples with regards to the subject is a matter of opinion and should be appropriately contradicted at the proper juncture rather than simply bungling the article.
 * One more comment. I doubt the article could be rewritten as there really isn't much to say about the subject, in my opinion, and everything that could be said would inherently be biased. Peasantwarrior (talk) 15:49, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I still stand behind those comments of my, but have changed my position due to finding of Miscarriage of justice article. Please, see my comment below. Peasantwarrior (talk) 06:59, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Apparently there isn't much to say about the subject because nobody has taken the care to write anything at one location. Feel free to research the subject before reaching a hastied opinion.  Biases are inherent to the person and a perfectly neutral point of view may be taken rationally to reach a informed conclusion which apparently seems to be lacking.
 * Delete. Seems to be made entirely to push a POV.  Note, however, that travesty currently redirects to Burlesque (genre), and there's probably some room for at least a disambiguation page there (burlesque, parody, cross-dressing, travesty of justice, possibly more).  - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 17:27, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment. We also have a page on miscarriage of justice, which may present similar issues; that strikes me as a plausible candidate for a merger and redirect. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 21:59, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment. Nice find. As it seems that article speaks of exactly the same subject and as there seems to be a consensus (even including the original editor) that this may be moved/merged/redirected to something else, I'll try to redirect to Miscarriage of justice and incorporate the term "travesty of justice" into that article. Miscarriage of justice article has some issues itself, but it has much more content and is less biased, so I believe it presents a good platform for those willing to work on that subject. I hope this redirect/merge is not too presumptuous of me and that I have correctly assessed we have a consensus here. Peasantwarrior (talk) 06:59, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Done. I've added some information about travesty of justice to the Miscarriage of justice article. However, redirecting is not possible at this time because it would delete an AfD notice on the article itself and that's forbidden because the discussion is still open (and I'm, of course, way too stupid to remember that at first). Peasantwarrior (talk) 07:16, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete and Move - move the content to here: . There's not enough to go on for a full article. Also, an argument over who is or isn't biased is for pundits and has little to do with whether an encyclopedia article is notable. Doomsdayer520  (Talk|Contribs) 19:01, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - actually writing from a neutral point of view is a fundamental principal of Wikipedia. Minefields such as this one should be quickly deleted.--RadioFan (talk) 22:25, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Perhaps an article could be written about this cliche, but any list of justice travesties would be subjective. Mandsford (talk) 19:24, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Article has nothing substantive to say. Smerdis has a good idea: blank this page and redirect to miscarriage of justice which is a well written article and a more neutral term. Or if that's not technically possible, just delete the article. --MelanieN (talk) 05:16, 7 January 2010 (UTC)MelanieN
 * Delete. Nothing short of POV pushing. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:15, 7 January 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.