Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/U.S. Government disenfranchisement of U.S. citizens residing in Puerto Rico


 * 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 Rename to Voting rights in Puerto Rico, non-admin closure. TonyBallioni 01:04, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

U.S. Government disenfranchisement of U.S. citizens residing in Puerto Rico

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

I originally proposed a merge into the main Puerto Rico article, however it has been over a month and no concensus has been reached after a long discussion, in a short time period this discussion became a exchange of political points of view and its integrity has been compromised by some acts of sockpuppetry. Now the article itself appears to have a extremely reduced scope based on someone's point of view concerning the island's relation with the United States and I personally think that this is just going to become a POV fork just as a fellow admin expressed before, giving undue weight to a problem that not only affects Puerto Rico but also several other territories or providences of the U.S., but its better that the fate of this article is be decided by neutral members of the community that don't have a POV concerning the country's politics -  Ca ri bb e a  n ~ H. Q.  11:09, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep It's a valid topic, since Puerto Ricans are U.S. citizens, but they can't vote in national elections. Until there was a constitutional amendment (in the 1960s, no less), U.S. citizens residing in the District of Columbia couldn't vote in national elections either.  The title needs to be changed "U.S. Government Disenfranchisement of U.S. Citizens" sounds like some conspiracy to keep people from voting in any election; the lack of a right to vote in a national election, as with the lack of a Congressman or Senator, is one of the costs that go along with the benefits of not living in one of the 50 states.   Mandsford 12:05, 6 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep, a valid and important topic. The title, however, is unnecessarily POV -- the USG isn't actively taking away voting rights, they were never granted as Puerto Rico has never sought statehood and chose its own commonwealth (federative) status via plebiscite. Presidential voting rights in Puerto Rico or even just Voting rights in Puerto Rico would seem to be a more neutral way to title the article. --Dhartung | Talk 13:46, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep and rename per Mandsford and Dhartung. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 14:46, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge to Puerto Rico without prejudice for re-creation in the future (provided that it is given an NPOV title) -- The topic is clearly notable, but the article needs to essentially be rewritten right now to de-POV it and to remove the extended quotations of legal opinions. (It's supposed to be an article, not an amicus curiae brief.) Since the article needs to be re-written, we might as well put all of this information in the Puerto Rico article. If, however, it later becomes too long for that article, it can be moved to a separate article with an NPOV title. --Hnsampat 17:24, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep and rename. The title is a problem, so rename it. Content needs some POV cleanup, but is certainly worth keeping. – Mike . lifeguard  &#124; @en.wb 20:57, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete -- rotten name that should be permanently trashed. Let it be rewritten and de-POVed if someone wants to, either in Puerto Rico or in a new article, or someone can always completely start over, but delete this. Noroton 22:55, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep and rename Mandsford and Dhartung make good points. - Superlex 23:10, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge to Puerto Rico While the issue deserves to be covered, the current article (including the name), has some serious NPOV issues. From looking at the article, I can see no reason why this issue couldn't be covered fully as a small section within the main Puerto Rico page for the time being.  If it eventually outgrows that, then there is no reason it couldn't branch off into a separate page again, but at the moment I just don't see the need for an independent article.  I understand that there have been some issues with the merge attempt in the past, but I personally believe that it is by far the best solution.Ricree101 02:09, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge to Puerto Rico or Rename I agree with Ricree101 on this issue. Article should be incorporated as appropriate into Puerto Rico.  Only if it outgrows a section there, and there is enough properly cited NPV material, then create an new article with an NPV name and link from main Puerto Rico article. As an outsider it seems like the obvious solution.  --lk 23:42, 10 November 2007 (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.