- 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The result was nomination withdrawn [1]. No other opposition. Merge discussion can be initiated on article talk if desired. ( non-admin closure) ansh 666 23:44, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
- Polemic ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Deletion and disambiguation entry proposed for deletion per WP:NOT#DICTIONARY. This is not a noteworthy topic in its own right. Opposition to deletion isn't expected.
KSci
(talk) 02:56, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
KSci
(talk)
02:56, 6 November 2016 (UTC)|pg=Polemic}}
- Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Debresser ( talk) 15:55, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
- Comment: Twinkle seems to have glitched in the making of this page as none of the links are formatted correctly.
Feinoha
Talk
02:58, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
- Comment: Fixed. Feinoha Talk 03:13, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
Automated comment: This AfD cannot be processed correctly because of an issue with the header. Please make sure the header has only 1 article, and doesn't have any HTML encoded characters.— cyberbot I Talk to my owner:Online 03:05, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga ( talk • mail) 04:41, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga ( talk • mail) 04:41, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Debresser ( talk) 10:33, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
- Keep and expand with tactics of polemics, historical examples. Noteworthy and interesting topic in Category:Rhetoric. "Opposition to deletion isn't expected." is definitely one of the most conceited nominations I've ever seen. Debresser ( talk) 10:26, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
- Keep, I have added 3 reliable sources with brief details of the history of polemic from ancient times to the 18th century. This article should not have been brought to AfD. Chiswick Chap ( talk) 12:36, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
Delete, if it stays in its current form; Wikipedia is not a Dictionary; adding sources is not the problem. To be kept, it would need expansion as Debresser states; ..."with tactics of polemics, historical examples". Which is not there. Kierzek ( talk) 15:11, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
- There is the beginning of a "History" section.
Debresser (
talk)
15:31, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
Not sufficient at this point. Still reads like a dictionary. Kierzek ( talk) 15:34, 6 November 2016 (UTC)- I agree that there should definitely be more, but we judge articles by their potential, not their present state, and since this article does have the potential, it is not fit for Afd (per
WP:SURMOUNTABLE).
Debresser (
talk)
15:54, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
- Justly said. Notability is judged by whether reliable sources exist in the world, not by whether they are already in an article; and the potential of a topic is judged by what is in those sources, not by what facts have already been added to the article. I've demonstrated that sources exist for a history, so we can see (and each verify for ourselves, if we choose) that such a thing could be written. That in turn shows that the subject is not limited to a dictionary definition.
Chiswick Chap (
talk)
16:32, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
- An article is "judged" by whether it meets certain criteria, and it is a matter of opinion whether it meets it or not.
Kierzek (
talk)
19:00, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
- Readers do that with whatever they read, but what is in an article at any particular moment has no bearing at all on
WP:Notability, as you will find if you check the policy for yourself. I have however added more text and sources to show what shape the article might take.
Chiswick Chap (
talk)
19:04, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
- Now that substantial work has been done since the original nomination and my comments above, I will change to keep as it now meets GNG. And notability is based on the evidence and now you have met it. Kierzek ( talk) 19:24, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
- Readers do that with whatever they read, but what is in an article at any particular moment has no bearing at all on
WP:Notability, as you will find if you check the policy for yourself. I have however added more text and sources to show what shape the article might take.
Chiswick Chap (
talk)
19:04, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
- An article is "judged" by whether it meets certain criteria, and it is a matter of opinion whether it meets it or not.
Kierzek (
talk)
19:00, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
- Justly said. Notability is judged by whether reliable sources exist in the world, not by whether they are already in an article; and the potential of a topic is judged by what is in those sources, not by what facts have already been added to the article. I've demonstrated that sources exist for a history, so we can see (and each verify for ourselves, if we choose) that such a thing could be written. That in turn shows that the subject is not limited to a dictionary definition.
Chiswick Chap (
talk)
16:32, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
- I agree that there should definitely be more, but we judge articles by their potential, not their present state, and since this article does have the potential, it is not fit for Afd (per
WP:SURMOUNTABLE).
Debresser (
talk)
15:54, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
- There is the beginning of a "History" section.
Debresser (
talk)
15:31, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
- Position changed from delete to merge
The addition of examples of polemic recently added provide the beginnings of the substance needed for a WP topic. This article was previously little more than a stub definition and an apparent magnet for poorly written and unsupported POV additions that depreciate WP's reputation as a viable information source. Thank you, @Chiswick Chap, for your efforts to improve this article with supported additions!
Additionally, this AfD has garnered much more interest than its long history of neglect suggested. To preserve the new content and recognize the existance of interest in the subject, I withdraw my position 'delete' and move instead that this topic be merged into the article Rhetoric. The rationale for merger is point #3 at WP:MERGEREASON and is based on the articles previous poor quality, history of neglect, and failure to develop over many years. Thank you all for your thoughtful replies. KSci (talk) 17:56, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
- Well, thank you. Article history, however, has nothing to do with notability. And since we agree that the topic itself is a worthy one, there is no reason to merge it with anything else. Chiswick Chap ( talk) 18:53, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
- Keep Per the numerous rationales given above. Safiel ( talk) 19:11, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
- Keep, now meets GNG. Kierzek ( talk) 19:24, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
- Still keep, see above. Debresser ( talk) 19:44, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
- Keep A simple WP:BEFORE style search shows many sources on the topic of polemics amongst books (GBooks shows 144,000 hits), encyclopedias, and scholarly articles (Gscholar shows 162,000 hits). This is a highly notable topic. Although it was not needed to show notability, Chiswick Chap is to be commended for improving the article, adding further sources, and explicitly refuting the assertion that this topic is only a dicdef. A highly notable topic and an article with WP:SURMOUNTABLE problems suggests keeping the article. -- Mark viking ( talk) 22:25, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
- 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.
- 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 nomination withdrawn [1]. No other opposition. Merge discussion can be initiated on article talk if desired. ( non-admin closure) ansh 666 23:44, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
- Polemic ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Deletion and disambiguation entry proposed for deletion per WP:NOT#DICTIONARY. This is not a noteworthy topic in its own right. Opposition to deletion isn't expected.
KSci
(talk) 02:56, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
KSci
(talk)
02:56, 6 November 2016 (UTC)|pg=Polemic}}
- Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Debresser ( talk) 15:55, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
- Comment: Twinkle seems to have glitched in the making of this page as none of the links are formatted correctly.
Feinoha
Talk
02:58, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
- Comment: Fixed. Feinoha Talk 03:13, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
Automated comment: This AfD cannot be processed correctly because of an issue with the header. Please make sure the header has only 1 article, and doesn't have any HTML encoded characters.— cyberbot I Talk to my owner:Online 03:05, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga ( talk • mail) 04:41, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga ( talk • mail) 04:41, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Debresser ( talk) 10:33, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
- Keep and expand with tactics of polemics, historical examples. Noteworthy and interesting topic in Category:Rhetoric. "Opposition to deletion isn't expected." is definitely one of the most conceited nominations I've ever seen. Debresser ( talk) 10:26, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
- Keep, I have added 3 reliable sources with brief details of the history of polemic from ancient times to the 18th century. This article should not have been brought to AfD. Chiswick Chap ( talk) 12:36, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
Delete, if it stays in its current form; Wikipedia is not a Dictionary; adding sources is not the problem. To be kept, it would need expansion as Debresser states; ..."with tactics of polemics, historical examples". Which is not there. Kierzek ( talk) 15:11, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
- There is the beginning of a "History" section.
Debresser (
talk)
15:31, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
Not sufficient at this point. Still reads like a dictionary. Kierzek ( talk) 15:34, 6 November 2016 (UTC)- I agree that there should definitely be more, but we judge articles by their potential, not their present state, and since this article does have the potential, it is not fit for Afd (per
WP:SURMOUNTABLE).
Debresser (
talk)
15:54, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
- Justly said. Notability is judged by whether reliable sources exist in the world, not by whether they are already in an article; and the potential of a topic is judged by what is in those sources, not by what facts have already been added to the article. I've demonstrated that sources exist for a history, so we can see (and each verify for ourselves, if we choose) that such a thing could be written. That in turn shows that the subject is not limited to a dictionary definition.
Chiswick Chap (
talk)
16:32, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
- An article is "judged" by whether it meets certain criteria, and it is a matter of opinion whether it meets it or not.
Kierzek (
talk)
19:00, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
- Readers do that with whatever they read, but what is in an article at any particular moment has no bearing at all on
WP:Notability, as you will find if you check the policy for yourself. I have however added more text and sources to show what shape the article might take.
Chiswick Chap (
talk)
19:04, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
- Now that substantial work has been done since the original nomination and my comments above, I will change to keep as it now meets GNG. And notability is based on the evidence and now you have met it. Kierzek ( talk) 19:24, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
- Readers do that with whatever they read, but what is in an article at any particular moment has no bearing at all on
WP:Notability, as you will find if you check the policy for yourself. I have however added more text and sources to show what shape the article might take.
Chiswick Chap (
talk)
19:04, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
- An article is "judged" by whether it meets certain criteria, and it is a matter of opinion whether it meets it or not.
Kierzek (
talk)
19:00, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
- Justly said. Notability is judged by whether reliable sources exist in the world, not by whether they are already in an article; and the potential of a topic is judged by what is in those sources, not by what facts have already been added to the article. I've demonstrated that sources exist for a history, so we can see (and each verify for ourselves, if we choose) that such a thing could be written. That in turn shows that the subject is not limited to a dictionary definition.
Chiswick Chap (
talk)
16:32, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
- I agree that there should definitely be more, but we judge articles by their potential, not their present state, and since this article does have the potential, it is not fit for Afd (per
WP:SURMOUNTABLE).
Debresser (
talk)
15:54, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
- There is the beginning of a "History" section.
Debresser (
talk)
15:31, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
- Position changed from delete to merge
The addition of examples of polemic recently added provide the beginnings of the substance needed for a WP topic. This article was previously little more than a stub definition and an apparent magnet for poorly written and unsupported POV additions that depreciate WP's reputation as a viable information source. Thank you, @Chiswick Chap, for your efforts to improve this article with supported additions!
Additionally, this AfD has garnered much more interest than its long history of neglect suggested. To preserve the new content and recognize the existance of interest in the subject, I withdraw my position 'delete' and move instead that this topic be merged into the article Rhetoric. The rationale for merger is point #3 at WP:MERGEREASON and is based on the articles previous poor quality, history of neglect, and failure to develop over many years. Thank you all for your thoughtful replies. KSci (talk) 17:56, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
- Well, thank you. Article history, however, has nothing to do with notability. And since we agree that the topic itself is a worthy one, there is no reason to merge it with anything else. Chiswick Chap ( talk) 18:53, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
- Keep Per the numerous rationales given above. Safiel ( talk) 19:11, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
- Keep, now meets GNG. Kierzek ( talk) 19:24, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
- Still keep, see above. Debresser ( talk) 19:44, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
- Keep A simple WP:BEFORE style search shows many sources on the topic of polemics amongst books (GBooks shows 144,000 hits), encyclopedias, and scholarly articles (Gscholar shows 162,000 hits). This is a highly notable topic. Although it was not needed to show notability, Chiswick Chap is to be commended for improving the article, adding further sources, and explicitly refuting the assertion that this topic is only a dicdef. A highly notable topic and an article with WP:SURMOUNTABLE problems suggests keeping the article. -- Mark viking ( talk) 22:25, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
- 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.