Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Threat
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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 02:10, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
see Wikipedia is not a dictionary -Eric (talk) 19:06, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. But sometimes it is for stubs that look like dictionary entries. :) While the top part of the article seems pretty clearly dictionary territory, the part on international law is about a concept, like Embargo or Blockade or Imminent threat. I believe that it could be expanded into a full encyclopedia article and hence is more than a dicdef. Note that there are apparently books on the topic: The Threat of Force in International Law, for instance. --Moonriddengirl 19:21, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Moonriddengirl, but I would prefer if the article were renamed to Threat (international law) and the plain dictionary-esque elements removed.--Danaman5 20:05, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Per Moonriddengirl, with the move recommened by Danaman5. --Tλε Rαnδom Eδιτor (tαlk) 21:18, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I'd support that move as well. --Moonriddengirl 22:32, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, more than a dicdef.--Patrick 22:44, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment There may well be content in the article that is of value and presents concepts worth incorporating into another article, but the word "threat" is simply a general term. -Eric (talk) 04:40, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Question Would you, then, support moving the article to the name Threat (international law) (removing the top part, which is dicdef)? That would leave "threat" as a redirect and meet current consensus. :) --Moonriddengirl 12:05, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Response Yes, or maybe it could be incorporated into a related, existing article such as Imminent threat, Laws of war, Public international law, or some other article dealing with international relations. -Eric (talk) 13:11, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Question Personally, I think Imminent threat would be better merged into Threat (international law). The former seems more subsection material to me. :) If you're comfortable with the article Threat being moved to Threat (international law) and the dictionary elements being eliminated, the AfD may be withdrawn (since nobody else is currently supporting deletion). (I've never closed an AfD, but I'm pretty sure I could figure out how to do it.) I'd be very comfortable boldly implementing that change myself in that case. If you remain uncertain, however, there's certainly nothing wrong with letting the AfD run its course. :) Other editors may have different views to offer. --Moonriddengirl 15:04, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Response Your ideas sound good to me, but I think you're also right that there's no harm in letting the AfD run a few days. I'm not passionate about the Threat article, by the way, I just like to keep in check the proliferation of articles on what are essentially common, general English vocabulary terms. I think your and Danaman's Threat (international law) idea would be appropriate if that is in fact a term defined by some authority on international law. However a search I did on the word "threat" in several int'l law terminology lists (on the internet) yielded nothing. I did find a few references to the concept of "threat of force" in a public international law context, among them a bookon the subject. That might suggest the new article's title be Threat of force (public international law). -Eric (talk) 17:39, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Sure the article needs work, but it has potential. Moonriddengirl's suggestions are a good start. - Mtmelendez (Talk|UB|Home) 01:00, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep -- lots of legal articles are just stubs right now, but the project is working on its backlog. Bearian 23:48, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Question If you are considering it a legal article, are you then agreeing here with the above suggestions of moving it--minus the dicdef--to a new name (with a legal disambiguation added in parentheses)? -Eric (talk) 14:50, 12 September 2007 (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.