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. John254 04:20, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Social protection in France (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

This article may constitute original research. I believe that the article is well-written, and on a topic that is suitable for inclusion in an encyclopedia. I believe that there are adequate sources for an article on this topic. However, this particular article reads too much like an essay rather than an encyclopedia article. Richard Cavell (talk) 22:17, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do agree that the article is not completely enyclopedic. However, you have been misled by the introduction. It is right that the introduction is not suitable (I have always difficulties to write correct introductions), but the rest of the article is encyclopedic and neutral. I will rewrite the introduction soon , so please do not delete the article, I have put a ((construction)). --Pah777 (talk) 22:36, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy keep the lead just needs rewriting a little--it otherwise does seem a perfect good article by the usual standards, though not yet finished. DGG (talk) 05:55, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The nomination reads more like a critical keep vote or talk page suggestions for improvement than a nomination for deletion. No real reasons for deletion has been provided. (if something is sourceable, it is not really original research). Just needs sources, tags and normal editing.John Z (talk) 05:55, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This article is valid, sourced, notable and encyclopedic. It calls for improvement rather than deletion. --Lockley (talk) 15:26, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Not a perfect article, but that's not a reason for deletion. The subject is clearly notable and sourceable, so needs editing rather than deletion. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:03, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I have added sources, I think it deserves at least a C-class status. --Pah777 (talk) 22:42, 30 November 2008 (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.