Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Government ethics

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 JForget 23:11, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Government ethics

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

Contested prod (by a sockpuppet of the original author). This article is simply a muddled, circular definition of the term "government ethics" that tells us nothing - each sentence repeats the previous one with increasing inaccuracy. It boils down to "government ethics is the ethics of government". Fails WP:OR. andy (talk) 15:22, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I agree with the nominator that the stub that was here was rather confusing and unfocused. I've attempted to rewrite it with a more pertinent quasi-disambiguating definition, and the subject is easily worthy of expanding. Surprised to see no article on legislative ethics yet. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:39, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The nomination fails to explain why the article cannot be improved in accordance with editing policy. It states that the content is tautology but then contradicts itself by saying that it is original research. There are hundreds of good sources for this topic. The nomination fails our deletion policy on numerous counts. Colonel Warden (talk) 21:22, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Google news shows many things. President Carter even created an organization called Office of Government Ethics. [1] to keep track of such things. The concept of government ethnics is quite notable. Hordes of Google news results as well as 1,948 results for Google Book search. Dream Focus 22:12, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:59, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep: give this article a chance. But might be redundant with an article on corruption. Consider a merge if the article fails to grow in a way that offers any new information. Arskwad (talk) 07:03, 12 May 2010 (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.