A case for creating an article for Mr. Barnett edit
After reading this article in the Washington Times today, it seems to me that Mr. Barnett's ranch has grown in significance beyond the series of well-documented and highly controversial events that occurred there over the last few years. In my view, Barnett has become a textbook case study for a number of unresolved and controversial issues:
- Property Rights: Does a property owner have the right to exclude others from using it?
- Vigilantism: May a private citizen engage in law enforcement activities when the established authorities can not or will not?
- International Borders: Are international travel and transport fundamental human rights, or should states be able to regulate which persons and goods enter their territory?
- Trans-border labor supply management: Should business in one country have access to labor from another? If so, should governments play a role in regulating it?
I'm not suggesting that a Wikipedia article should become a forum for discussing controversial issues, but I do think that readers would appreciate having an online fact-based resource to aid their research.
Comments? Mike Duskis (talk) 23:00, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
- In my opinion, I think this article is a still a pretty strong candidate for deletion, because we've got an adequate article on the matter at Cross Rail Ranch. Per WP:NOTNEWS, it's hard to see enduring coverage of this individual. All the above issues can be adequately written about, with the role Barnett has taken in them, at Cross Rail Ranch. Regards. Claritas § 07:24, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
- Thank you for the explanation. I have no objection to keeping all of the information on one page provided that it is easy to find. How about making Roger Barnett into a redirect to Cross Rail Ranch? Mike Duskis (talk) 00:42, 2 June 2010 (UTC)