Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Immutable characteristic

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. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 03:35, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Immutable characteristic

Immutable characteristic (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Immutable_characteristic&action=edit

It has no sources. Just a couple of links to other WP article, none of which substantiate what is said here. Several of the protected groups are not immutable. Being a hate crime has little to do with anything being immutable. I say delete the article as worthless. Roger (talk) 03:04, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I completed the nomination. ansh666 23:41, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - In its current state, it falls afoul of
  WP:NOTDICT as well as having no sources. A cursory Google search failed to find anything remotely reliable or useful, but hopefully someone with more knowledge on the matter will know where to look. ansh666 23:42, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • And so they did. Keep per below, on the condition that it's expanded to include the "impact" mentioned below (I won't, because I hate legal stuff!). ansh666 16:22, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The concept seems notable. For example, see On Modern Legal Culture — "Immutability as a concept has played a part in American constitutional law". The page is currently just weak stub but that is not a reason to delete - see our
  editing policy. Andrew (talk) 09:13, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep This is a both a legal and ethical concept, and theological (discussed at
  C 14:15, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep per
  WP:BEFORE. Whole books and many scholarly articles have been written about the concept. Bearian (talk) 17:47, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:41, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:41, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, significant amount of coverage in scholarly and academic secondary sources. — Cirt (talk) 06:15, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, the article is just a silly attempt to use someone else's leverage, in this case, anti-Hitler sentiment.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.24.44 (talk • contribs)
  • ...what? ansh666 18:13, 28 March 2014 (UTC) (p.s. Godwin's law)[reply]
    • 76.64.24.44 has four edits. One here which makes no sense, two others where he removed something he called spam that was not, and one on another IP address's talk page where he accused them of being a sockpuppet. Dream Focus 15:40, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Obvious keep. Discussed in tons of sources. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:27, 31 March 2014 (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.