Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Uniform Parental Rights Enforcement and Protection Act

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. – ABCD 00:36, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Uniform Parental Rights Enforcement and Protection Act

• A proposed bill. Not even worth Wikisource. DJ Clayworth 15:19, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• This is part of a 35 year old Fathers' rights movement and is integral to the cause. Agwiii 17:19, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Comment:The text of the Constitution of the United States is integral to American democracy, but it doesn't belong on Wikipedia. DJ Clayworth 17:23, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• To suggest the UPREPA should not be on Wikipedia is to missunderstand the impact of the document as an active instrument of reform. The Constitution is not the UPREPA and the analogy is spurious. UPREPA is important because it defines critical concepts as we try to end the war on children. The equal rights amendment is a reform movement of similar impact and the entire text of the ERA is included on Wikipedia. While the UPREPA is longer than the ERA, the potential impact is similar. Both reforms belong here. Rex 18:19, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)
• Wikipedia is not a repository of source material. Delete. Uncle G 18:45, 2005 Apr 1 (UTC)
  • This is no longer source material. Keep. Uncle G 15:55, 2005 Apr 9 (UTC)
• Delete. No Wikisource. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:13, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. At best, this deserves a mention (not a quote of the full text) in an article about the "father's rights movement." Anonymous comment.
• Merge and Redirect to Father's rights. -- 8^D ^gab 22:36, 2005 Apr 1 (UTC)
• Retain.
• Delete unless the article is rewritten to be about the proposed law instead of the text of it. Source texts do not belong on Wikipedia. RickK 20:26, Apr 2, 2005 (UTC)
• Cleanup and Keep. Transwiki the current Article to Wikisource. --Irishpunktom\^talk 15:03, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)
• Cleaned Up with the text of the proposal removed to Wikisource. Rex Judicata 19:33, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Unlike the ERA, this proposed act is apparently not backed by any of the major political parties, nor is it backed by NCCUSL, the main neutral body behind most uniform laws. Anonymous, unsigned irrelevant comments.
• Keep as rewritten (preferrably with a cross-wiki link to the source text). Rossami (talk) 04:42, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• KeeP as rewritten with a crss-wiki link to the source document. Agwiii 20:31, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Delete, --SqueakBox 00:30, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)

There is an allegation that User:Rex Judicata Special:Contributions/ User:Rex Judicata is a wikipedia:sockpuppet of User:Agwiii Special:Contributions/ User Agwiii at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Older username so be aware of this when counting the votes, --SqueakBox 18:22, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)

More specifically see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User:RexJudicata. it seems RexJudicata created Agwiii as a sockpuppet to influence the vote here, --SqueakBox 21:29, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.