Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Negative and positive rights

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 keep. - Mailer Diablo 01:52, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Negative and positive rights

This looks very much like a personal essay. "Some philosophers and political scientists make a distinction" - really? Which ones? And is this generally considered a significant debate? Very few citations for the length and level of detail. Guy (Help!) 14:22, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP this is definitely something that ought to be in wikipedia. Very fundamental philosophical idea that would be in a real encyclopedia with much of the same disucssion. Could probably use some development, but a topic like that is very notable and verifiable and will probably get updated frequently. Barsportsunlimited 14:33, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I don't see anything wrong with this article. 5 reliable secondary sources, at least one of which is substantially more in-depth than the article. And the subject is one even I've heard of, despite the fact that I've only read very shallowly in the field of rights and philosophy, so I'd say it's likely to be pretty important. JulesH 14:38, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article might be improvable, but it's by no means utterly atrocious; the subject matter itself is notable enough. It even formed the basis for a three part BBC Television documentary I watched a couple of months back, and I don't even have a TV... --Aim Here 19:15, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, undercited by 2007 standards but fairly well-written summary of the subject matter. There might be a few idiosyncratic claims slipped in there but a judicious review by an expert should be able to fiddle those out. --Dhartung | Talk 19:44, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: the article seems to have never wholly recovered from a merger of negative rights and positive rights. See the respective talk pages. --Dhartung | Talk 19:47, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep unless there's some evidence that the references don't relate to the subject (making it OR). Seems like a reasonable article to me. JJL 21:29, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Aim here & JJL. --Random ^{Say it here!} 23:48, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep certainly could be better written, but this a half-decent article on an important concept in political philosophy.-- danntm ^T _C 01:24, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I will try to have a second look at this when I have time; it wants tightening, but it is certainly a valid topic in jurisprudence. FWIW, the assertion that "Some philosophers and political scientists make a distinction. . . " is certainly valid, at the beginning of an article or paragraph, when it is followed up by examples, as here. - Smerdis of Tlön 17:17, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It is referred to by so many other articles that it would be quite disruptive to delete this article. --Rebroad 09:55, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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.