Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Winner takes all (benefits)


 * 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) 16:18, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Winner takes all (benefits)

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Article is a WP:SOAPBOX piece. The article title makes it difficult to re-write from a neutral point of view. noq (talk) 07:43, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

If it is not possible to summarise areas of law which are one-sided, then how can an encyclopedia be complete?

I am sure I could find dozens of articles on wikipedia which are one-sided in their portrayal of the situation and have been included for some time.

If the information is accurate, the fact that it is identifying a problem, which is unfair is surely not a good reason for deleting?

For example, the article on domestic violence continually repeats 'evidence' of female victims and is unbalanced, but that has been allowed to stay. It is likely (as is said in the article) that the number of male and female victims is about the same and yet wikipedia allowed an unbalanced article to remain. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bubblyian (talk • contribs) 09:23, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * This article is a WP:SYNTHESIS of several laws that has been put together to present a political point of view. Why did you create it? To show the inequities of the system? If so, that is inherently not WP:NPOV. As I said in the nomination - WP:SOAPBOX applies. Your reference to Domestic violence is a WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument and so not relevant. (although from your comments it seems it does strive to be neutral even if it could be better). noq (talk) 12:58, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:38, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

okay - will add third party support references, rather than just my own use of the title. I could add the phrase to each reference on Wikipedia to the underlying issues to cross refer if that would makke more sense?Bubblyian —Preceding undated comment added 17:29, 27 January 2010 (UTC). Added 11 references to same phrase from round the world - if deletion request is removed, I'll move these into references and discuss the detail of each comment if you wish. Just google winner takes all children and see how many more you get. It IS in common use and should be explained. Open to suggestions on variations to meet your objections.comment added by Bubblyian —Preceding undated comment added 19:01, 28 January 2010 (UTC).
 * Delete This appears to be WP:OR/WP:SYNTHESIS. The impression that I get from reading this article is that the creator is pissed off because they don't get money that goes to his kids mother instead (if that's not the case, then I apologise, but that's the impression that I got from reading it), but as has been noted above, this is not a place for WP:SOAPBOX. You'd be better off creating a website at sites.google.com and placing this there. Unless independent and reliable sources show that this phrase 'Winner takes all' is in common use with regard to the benefits situation in the UK (and I couldn't find any evidence of this), then I'm afraid that this has no place in an encyclopedia. --  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 14:54, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. Editorial soapboxing, redundant to pages such as father's rights and child support. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:36, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete as synthesis, bordering on a personal essay. J I P  | Talk 18:02, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I have just looked at all the references you added. None of them actually improve your case. No one is disputing that the phrase "winner takes all" is common. And most of the references you gave did not even mention the phrase anyway. The article still suffers from the problems highlighted above. Your own involvement with a pressure group involved in this are also indicates a conflict of interest. noq (talk) 20:06, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for accepting that the phrase is in common use in this context and hence that argument for deletion is no longer a factor. As for your other points - Inevitably a researcher will publish his results. In doing so he will have a point of view to present, but should still be allowed to publish. Otherwise society cannot change direction if people who point out that the current belief is wrong are not allowed to say so because they are accused of a conflict between campaigning to change the system and identifying what is wrong with the system! I have added the alternative position as an intro. All the articles referred to mention the phrase somewhere. I have deleted most references to Families Need Fathers and there are no links to my personal campaigning websites, so it is not self-publciity and since I am only involved with charities, I cannot be accused of personal or commercial gain. I am simply trying to raise awareness and knowledge of a huge problem in society, which is being swept under the proverbial carpet by people refusing to acknowledge the problem and trying to suppress the publication or publcity for the issues, as you are trying to do here. I am sure I could find loads of examples of exactly the things that you are acuusing me of elsewhere on wikipedia, but are generally accepted as 'correct' perceptions of society, without any real evidence to support them - as with the domestic violence sites and other pro-female viewpoints. Why not equally pick their unsubstantiated arguments apart as well?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bubblyian (talk • contribs) 20:35, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Firstly, I have not accepted the phrase is "in common use in this context" - please do not put words into my mouth. What is "this context"? Law? or UK benefits? Most of the references you added DO NOT contain the phrase, those that do, do so in the context of litigation - not benefits. Secondly, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not accepted as an argument in AFD debates. Thirdly, Wikipedia requires articles to conform to certain standards Neutral point of view is one of those, No original research is another - which this article violates. Have you read the articles linked to earlier - they do explain these points and why this article has been nominated for deletion noq (talk) 20:49, 28 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete because it appears to have been made up to make a point. No evidence of encyclopedic notability. MilborneOne (talk) 22:45, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep The concept is notable as the independent third party sources in the article show. The lack of neutrality in the article can be dealt with by incoporating the other points of view. Sole Soul (talk) 19:12, 31 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete it is an essay, it is a soapbox, it is a coatrack, it's many things and none of them even resembles even a hope of a good article RadioFan (talk) 12:31, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete for goodness' sake. Deb (talk) 12:43, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete soapbox article. DJ Clayworth (talk) 18:04, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment I have expanded the references to show the paragrpah including the phrase winner takes all - in most cases the authors put the phrase in speech marks - hence denoting an unusual use of the phrase that requires an explanation - hence an entry on wikipedia is appropriate for explaining this. As for soapbox argument, - any explanation of issues could be called that, but it is still a useful addition to Wikipedia in summarizing all the issues in one place to describe what the phrase means and why it is appropriate. Maybe a name change to winner takes all (children) or (child custody) would be more appropriate? User - bubblyIan —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bubblyian (talk • contribs) 18:30, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - While I admire your efforts but its not wise to stand in front of growing snowball speeding down a hill.--RadioFan (talk) 18:33, 2 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment. Concept is well-covered in Adversarial system, Child custody, Fathers' rights movement, Parental alienation syndrome, (and even Parents' rights movement, which should be merged, no)? Edit there. Abductive  (reasoning) 06:30, 4 February 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.