Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:SOPA initiative/UN

 __NOINDEX__
 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was  keep and tag "historical". JohnCD (talk) 13:48, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

SOPA initiative/UN


WP:SOAP violation. Wikipedia is not a forum for advocacy of any kind, and any encouragement to send letters to outside parties violates this policy. &mdash;Kww(talk) 02:32, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete Violates WP:NOTADVOCATE. The blackout may have sullied that guideline, but there's no reason to take it further. And writing letters to the United Nations is both taking it to an extreme and rather silly and futile anyway. Franamax (talk) 02:48, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete Writing a letter is taking the protest one step too far. I favored the blackout, but a petition is not part of Wikipedia's mission. Johnuniq (talk) 06:19, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep for historical reference, as is standard procedure with proposals. WP:SOAP clearly doesn't apply in this situation either. Short of the proposer requesting a U1, there's really no reason for this.  Swarm   X 23:28, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Speaking of that, I self-nominated the page for deletion under G7.  Whenaxis  about &#124; talk 23:30, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I have removed the speedy because there have been substantial contributions to the page—in the form of comments opposing the proposal—by other editors. I agree that the proposal violates WP:NOTADVOCATE but am neutral about whether this should be retained for historical reference. Cunard (talk) 23:47, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * In that case, I change my vote to keep, since I did.. create the page.  Whenaxis  about &#124; talk 22:46, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep-Writing a letter is taking it too far? Nobody is suggesting that PIPA/SOPA are done. PROTECT IP is a rewrite of COICA. This kind of thing requires a follow-up or we will end up in the same position as before. We can't just say "That'll show em'" and take the day off. Archive per standard procedure. Marcus   Qwertyus   05:50, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep and tag historical. Marcus Qwertyus and Whenaxis both make good arguments which I agree with. ··· 日本穣 ? · 投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe ·  Join WP Japan ! 08:32, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep - WP:NOTADVOCATE should be marked as historic after the SOPA protest. Its also important to keep these activist pages so we can see what the level of interest was.  You  really  can  17:35, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The only problem I would have had with keeping it is if the proposer had strongly opposed. That doesn't seem to be the case, so keep with a nod to User:Youreallycan for his reasoning (the second sentence, anyway). It was a good-faith proposal, so I don't see as big a problem with NOTADVOCATE.  Nolelover   Talk · Contribs  19:06, 24 January 2012 (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 page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.