The result was keep. Withdrawn ( non-admin closure) Basalisk inspect damage⁄ berate 16:50, 12 September 2012 (UTC) reply
WP:OR mini-essay. Basalisk inspect damage⁄ berate 14:27, 10 September 2012 (UTC) reply
Given that you nominated the article for deletion, it doesn't appear that you think it's totally fine for other people to not work on it. It instead appears that you want it deleted unless other people work on it. That's what I'm talking about. If you're actually unable to do the research to determine what source material is available concerning the topic of an article (which I doubt is the case) then you should not be nominating articles for deletion because doing so is the basic essential step in determining whether a topic meets the inclusion criteria for Wikipedia - you should not simply take a guess at whether or not there's further material on a topic and create an AfD to prompt others to do that research.
Besides that, "it's just a definition" and "it's unsourced" are completely different deletion rationales from the nomination. If you just personally want it deleted and don't actually have any underlying valid policy concerns, and you're just going to keep tossing out whatever arguments you can come up with to see what sticks, there's even less reason for anyone else to go off on goose chases to try to satisfy the complaint you have at any particular moment. With the amount of hits your own {{ find sources}} links are generating, the burden's on you to show that none of these sources demonstrate that the topic "open terrain" satisfies inclusion criteria for Wikipedia - if there's source material out there, per policy the article should remain.
As S Marshall says below, there's no reason why "open terrain" should be a redlink. Inclusion is based upon the characteristics of the topic itself, not anything having to do with the writing of the article that's on Wikipedia at any given moment. -- ▸∮truthious ᛔandersnatch◂ 16:25, 11 September 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Withdrawn ( non-admin closure) Basalisk inspect damage⁄ berate 16:50, 12 September 2012 (UTC) reply
WP:OR mini-essay. Basalisk inspect damage⁄ berate 14:27, 10 September 2012 (UTC) reply
Given that you nominated the article for deletion, it doesn't appear that you think it's totally fine for other people to not work on it. It instead appears that you want it deleted unless other people work on it. That's what I'm talking about. If you're actually unable to do the research to determine what source material is available concerning the topic of an article (which I doubt is the case) then you should not be nominating articles for deletion because doing so is the basic essential step in determining whether a topic meets the inclusion criteria for Wikipedia - you should not simply take a guess at whether or not there's further material on a topic and create an AfD to prompt others to do that research.
Besides that, "it's just a definition" and "it's unsourced" are completely different deletion rationales from the nomination. If you just personally want it deleted and don't actually have any underlying valid policy concerns, and you're just going to keep tossing out whatever arguments you can come up with to see what sticks, there's even less reason for anyone else to go off on goose chases to try to satisfy the complaint you have at any particular moment. With the amount of hits your own {{ find sources}} links are generating, the burden's on you to show that none of these sources demonstrate that the topic "open terrain" satisfies inclusion criteria for Wikipedia - if there's source material out there, per policy the article should remain.
As S Marshall says below, there's no reason why "open terrain" should be a redlink. Inclusion is based upon the characteristics of the topic itself, not anything having to do with the writing of the article that's on Wikipedia at any given moment. -- ▸∮truthious ᛔandersnatch◂ 16:25, 11 September 2012 (UTC) reply