| Revision as of 19:32, 19 April 2015 editDavewild (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users49,789 edits Closing debate, result was delete← Previous edit | Revision as of 02:12, 21 April 2015 edit undo173.67.164.113 (talk) COMMENT NEEDS INVESTIGATION BY CONGRESSNext edit → | ||
| Line 7: | Line 7: | ||
| The result was '''delete'''. With no prejudice to the creation of a redirect to ], which anyone can do. ] (]) 19:32, 19 April 2015 (UTC) | The result was '''delete'''. With no prejudice to the creation of a redirect to ], which anyone can do. ] (]) 19:32, 19 April 2015 (UTC) | ||
| ===]=== | ===]=== | ||
| REQUEST A CONGRESSIONAL HEARING OF WIKIPEDIA AND THE TAX FREE STATUS IN REGARD TO THIS DELETION AND USERS TO CENSOR HISTORY. CONSTITUTIONAL CHALLENGES HAS NO LINKS TO HOBBY LOBBY OR CONESTOGA WOOD SPECIALTIES OR OTHER CASES THAT WERE FILED BY SENATOR JOHNSON ETC. | |||
Revision as of 02:12, 21 April 2015
- 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. With no prejudice to the creation of a redirect to Constitutional challenges to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, which anyone can do. Davewild (talk) 19:32, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
Legal challenges to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act
REQUEST A CONGRESSIONAL HEARING OF WIKIPEDIA AND THE TAX FREE STATUS IN REGARD TO THIS DELETION AND USERS TO CENSOR HISTORY. CONSTITUTIONAL CHALLENGES HAS NO LINKS TO HOBBY LOBBY OR CONESTOGA WOOD SPECIALTIES OR OTHER CASES THAT WERE FILED BY SENATOR JOHNSON ETC.
- Legal challenges to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This appears to be a POV Fork (not valid) as opposed to a Content Fork (valid) of Constitutional challenges to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, or a potential copy and paste of some of that article.
This is a procedural nomination and I am making it a neutral nomination. Had I found the other article during WP:AFC I would have pushed this one back to the contributing author. Fiddle Faddle 13:07, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
- Delete as a POV fork. Relevant content is covered more thoroughly and neutrally in Constitutional challenges to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 02:19, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
- Comment - This article's content, and the idea of having an article with this title, has been discussed before many, many times before by myself, DrFleischman, Famspear, Jkaganoff, 108.11.225.129, and 173.67.162.239 (one or both of these two IPs are probably same contributor as 108.11.228.250, who created this new article) on Talk:Constitutional challenges to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and in edit summaries on the article page. (Especially relevant is this.) Despite the protestations of this IP contributor, previous consensus has been against including much of this content and also against creating a POV fork named "Legal challenges to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act". This appears to be an attempt to circumvent consensus by avoiding the article talk page and instead using the WP:AFC process. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 02:44, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
- Delete. Needless duplication of a subject already covered in Constitutional challenges to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. Hint: Virtually any "legal challenge" to a statute enacted by the U.S. Congress would have to be a challenge based on its constitutionality -- so the two articles would, in effect, be two articles on the same topic. Famspear (talk) 04:21, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
- Delete. POV fork as described above, relevant content discussions here, here. This contributor has been edit warring against consensus over this content since September 2014 and was blocked before they starting IP hopping. Based on their geolocation I also believe they have a COI concerning the Cutler case (which has been the primary focus of the edit warring, and which appears in this POV fork). --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:25, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:25, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:25, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
- This appears to be a plausible redirect to Constitutional challenges to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. This page will not be eligible for deletion on grounds of the POV of its present content because that isn't a criteria for revision deletion, and the page will be NPOV if reduced to a redirect. We only delete a plausible redirect if it is positively harmful (WP:R), and I don't think the POV fork arguments above demonstrate that. James500 (talk) 07:38, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
- The argument is not that the article is POV, but that the article is a POV fork. WP:POVFORK: "As Misplaced Pages does not view article forking as an acceptable solution to disagreements between contributors, such forks may be merged, or nominated for deletion." Regardless, whether the removal of the content is accomplished by reducing it to a redirect or by actual deletion is just a technicality. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 08:22, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
- My apologies, James500 for not linking to the term in the nomination. I'd like to thank DrFleischman for linking to it just now. I can see how the confusion arose, and have just linked the term in the nomination. I have also linked to the other term with Misplaced Pages:Content forking where there is a larger discussion of the matter. Fiddle Faddle 09:00, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
- The passage from POVFORK cited by Dr Fleischman above says nothing about forks that are also plausible redirects. In that case, the relevant guideline is WP:R. Since that guideline creates a very strong presumption against the deletion of plausible redirects, and their page histories, I do not see this as a technicality. James500 (talk) 09:44, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
- Neither WP:POVFORK or WP:R appears to take precedence over the other. Regardless, the two guidelines are not in conflict. WP:R says this about POV forks: "Articles created as POV forks may be deleted and replaced by a redirect pointing towards the article from which the fork originated." This is the approach we should take here; the article should be deleted as a POV fork, which will reduce edit warring over content that has been rejected by consensus on numerous occasions. If an editor feels it necessary, they can then recreate it as a redirect. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 18:14, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
- The passage from POVFORK cited by Dr Fleischman above says nothing about forks that are also plausible redirects. In that case, the relevant guideline is WP:R. Since that guideline creates a very strong presumption against the deletion of plausible redirects, and their page histories, I do not see this as a technicality. James500 (talk) 09:44, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
- My apologies, James500 for not linking to the term in the nomination. I'd like to thank DrFleischman for linking to it just now. I can see how the confusion arose, and have just linked the term in the nomination. I have also linked to the other term with Misplaced Pages:Content forking where there is a larger discussion of the matter. Fiddle Faddle 09:00, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
- The argument is not that the article is POV, but that the article is a POV fork. WP:POVFORK: "As Misplaced Pages does not view article forking as an acceptable solution to disagreements between contributors, such forks may be merged, or nominated for deletion." Regardless, whether the removal of the content is accomplished by reducing it to a redirect or by actual deletion is just a technicality. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 08:22, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
- Delete as POV and a copyright violation (i.e. copying without attribution) and then recreate as a Redirect - very plausible search term. --ThaddeusB (talk) 04:57, 18 April 2015 (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.