Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stop Online Piracy Act

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 Speedy keep per the Stop Disrupting Wikipedia to Make a Point Act. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 20:45, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Stop Online Piracy Act[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No neutrality Delete, no neutrality at all. Makes SOPA seem really bad, some of it may even be defamation!--WOLfan112 (talk) 17:04, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Clearly disruptive nomination. Binksternet (talk) 17:11, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia says all articles must be neutral, so how is it disruptive. It may also be defamation.--WOLfan112 (talk) 17:14, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 March 10. Snotbot t • c » 18:26, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- Surmountable WP:PROBLEM. Marcus Qwertyus 18:31, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. If it's not neutral WP:BEBOLD and fix it, not nominate it for deletion. It's clearly notable.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 19:23, 10 March 2012 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]
Speedy keep Please read the WP:Deletion policy before nominating another article for deletion. Reach Out to the Truth 19:40, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. AfD isn't for neutrality disputes. Gobōnobo ⁺ ^c 20:28, 10 March 2012 (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.