Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arendt on Human 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 redirect to Hannah Arendt#Arendt's Critique of Human Rights. (non-admin closure) Kharkiv07 (T) 23:32, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Arendt on Human Rights[edit]

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

WP:OR, reads like a book report/essay. Versa geek 21:21, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per OR and WP:NOTESSAY. APerson (talk!) 21:50, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:56, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/redirect to Hannah_Arendt#Arendt.27s_Critique_of_Human_Rights. This is already covered in her article and is better summarized. (It was written by the same person, but this looks far less OR - although it does need to be sourced.) This is just too OR to be kept on Wikipedia, although it does offhand seem like it'd make a nice paper elsewhere. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:16, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - Per nominators nomination comment. Olowe2011 ^Talk 20:49, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OR and essay style don't qualify for Speedy Deletion, which is why I created this AfD rather than just deleting it myself. --Versa geek 20:38, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as this seems best and there's nothing to suggest a better article at this time. SwisterTwister talk 05:14, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Citations have been added. None of the content is OR. Passages have been re-worded to reduce appearance of OR. Datracy59 (talk) 18:03, 28 September 2015 (UTC)Datracy59[reply]
Keep As it happens I have read the book by Arendt under discussion and this article's references to it are clearly a summary, not original research. The added citations help a lot in this regard. With them, this is a high quality entry.Porphyry Jones (talk) 04:03, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:58, 2 October 2015 (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.