- 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. And it looks like the nominator has changed their mind about seeking deletion so this is unanimous. Liz Read! Talk! 06:43, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
Restricted military area
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Restricted military area ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
WP:NOTDICT per Isaidnoway's PROD. voorts ( talk/ contributions) 20:42, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the
list of Military-related deletion discussions.
voorts (
talk/
contributions)
20:42, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Only citation is a dictionary entry. No evidence found that this is a notable concept. WeirdNAnnoyed ( talk) 20:59, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
- Comment: This could probably be an article if there was expansion with discussions of the implication of a restricted military area on things like protest rights or other civil liberties. I'm certain these sources exist in scholarly sources like law reviews, but as is the article is pretty much a dictionary definition. TulsaPoliticsFan ( talk) 23:37, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
- Weak keep - As per TulsaPoliticsFan, I could see this being expanded to discuss the legal implications of such areas. For example, this
[1] would be an academic RS that includes discussion of differences between military and non-military areas in terms the powers granted to (military) authorities in Finland.Another example of a potential (albeit non-academic) source on Finland specifically would be this
Kaleva news story that states, among other things, that
no events that could includes features of political activity are held on [the FDF's] military areas
. [2] The same story appears to have been reported on by multiple other Finnish newspapers. There's also a bunch of news stories about photography near and on (sometimes temporary) restricted military areas in Finland. [3] The last decade or so has also seen a rather a constant stream of news about land ownership inside and close to restricted military areas in Finland, especially from the perspective of foreign nationals purchasing land. [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9]These alone push me to a weak keep, and I'd imagine there's plenty more in other languages and about other countries. - Ljleppan ( talk) 09:27, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 20:42, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
Delete- Wikipedia is not a dictionary. This article is a one sentence definition.
- The concept, "restricted military area", is so broad and nebulous it's hard to visualize what a full article might consist of. We could just as easily set ourselves the task to write articles about "scary places" or "boring drives". There may be better articles about specific topics like the one in Finland that Tulsa Fan cited above. That would be more along the lines of "scary Icelandic lava pit" or "boring Long Island bus route"
- --
A. B. (
talk •
contribs •
global count)
03:49, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
- I think this is a pretty unuseful bunch of comparisons. First, as to what the article would look like, I'd imagine something along the lines of
Military base or perhaps
Battery (crime). As to what separates a "restricted military area" from "scary places", I'm not aware of any polity where "scary place" was defined in law and designated "scary places" were guarded by armed dudes who had the right to restrict the basic civil rights of those who enter the "scary place". The reason I used Finland for my example is that I have easy access to sources about it. I'm sure similar sources could be found about the US, which has laws like
this in the books, and for the UK which has laws like
this. I doubt similar laws exist for "scary places" or "boring drives".
Ljleppan (
talk)
06:02, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
- Keep per Visviva's generous offer below. -- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count) 03:03, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
- I think this is a pretty unuseful bunch of comparisons. First, as to what the article would look like, I'd imagine something along the lines of
Military base or perhaps
Battery (crime). As to what separates a "restricted military area" from "scary places", I'm not aware of any polity where "scary place" was defined in law and designated "scary places" were guarded by armed dudes who had the right to restrict the basic civil rights of those who enter the "scary place". The reason I used Finland for my example is that I have easy access to sources about it. I'm sure similar sources could be found about the US, which has laws like
this in the books, and for the UK which has laws like
this. I doubt similar laws exist for "scary places" or "boring drives".
Ljleppan (
talk)
06:02, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
- Keep and expand as a significant legal/regulatory concept meriting a
broad-concept article, although definitely a tough one. I don't think there's a real question of notability here; plenty has certainly been written about restricted military areas. A plausible prototype of coverage can be found at
de:Militärisches Sperrgebiet, which is currently inaccurately interwikied to
military exclusion zone. Our legal coverage is awash in BCA-shaped holes, partly because they're very hard to write from a global standpoint, partly because we've never had a robust editor corps for legal topics anyway, and partly because BCAs tend to be a slippery mess in general. IMO the optimal approach here is definition + any comparative scholarship we can dredge up (probably not much in this case) + bulleted list of paragraphs briefly summarizing the concept as applied in each country. We could start with US, UK, and Finland paragraphs based on the links posted in this discussion. I'll take a stab if the article is kept. --
Visviva (
talk)
01:08, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
- Thank you @ Visviva! I'll change my !vote. Thank you also for introducing me to the notion of a "broad-concept article" - that's what I was struggling to articulate above with my talk of scary places and boring drives.
- I have confidence in your ability to pull this off.
A. B. (
talk •
contribs •
global count)
03:01, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
- Keep and expand this notable topic. Okoslavia ( talk) 09:06, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
- Keep Although I am the nom, I mainly nominated this because I agreed with the PROD at the time, but I have now decided that this should be kept per @ Visviva and Ljleppan. voorts ( talk/ contributions) 00:26, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
References
- ^ Järvenpää, Marika (2016). "Viranomaisten toimivaltuudet kohteiden suojaamisessa hybridiuhkia vastaan" [Powers of authorities in protecting targets against hybrid threats]. Tiede ja ase (in Finnish). 74.
- ^ "Puolustusvoimat esti Suomen Sisun juhlat sotilasalueella" [Finnish Defence Forces Blocks Suomen Sisu's Party inside Military Area]. Kaleva (in Finnish). 11 November 2013.
- ^ Vuorinen, Terho (23 August 2018). "Tilanne sotilaiden ja poliisin välillä kärjistyi Tikkakoskella – sanailun jälkeen komisariota uhattiin rynnäkkökiväärillä" [An Encounter Between Soldiers and Police Escalated in Tikkakoski - A Police Officer was Threatened with an Assault Rifle Following an Exchange of Words]. Ilta Sanomat (in Finnish).
- ^ Malin, Tuula (16 October 2014). "IL paljastaa: Sotilasalue myytiin ulkomaalaisille" [Iltalehti Reveals: Military Area was Sold to Foreigners]. Iltalehti (in Finnish).
- ^ Kerkkänen, Tuomas (1 November 2016). "Puolustusministeriö selvittää venäläisten maakauppoja sotilasalueiden liepeiltä – työ pidetty piilossa" [Ministry of Defence is Looking Into Russian Land Purchases near Military Areas]. Yle uutiset (in Finnish).
- ^ STT (20 April 1017). "Puolustusministeri Niinistö: Valtion etuosto-oikeus maakaupoissa olisi järkevää" [Minister of Defence Niinistö: State Right of Pre-Emption in Land Sales Would be Sensible]. Kaleva (in Finnish).
- ^ Kaarakainen, henri (20 April 2017). "Valtiolle halutaan lunastusoikeus maakaupoissa" [State Wants Right of Pre-Emption in Land Sales]. Ruotuväki (in Finnish).
- ^ Paananen, Arja (1 March 2019). "Uusi tiukka laki hyväksyttiin: Venäläisille maata vain erikoisluvalla" [Strict New Law Approved: Land Sold to Russian on by Special Permit] (in Finnish).
- ^ Nieminen, Rami (14 July 2022). "Kun Venäjä hyökkäsi Ukrainaan, valtio esti Seppo Sergei Kapasen "lottovoittodiilin" maanpuolustuksellisista syistä - Nyt hän aikoo kokeilla onneaan oikeusteitse" [When Russian Invaded Ukraine, the State Blocked Seppo Sergei Kapanen's "Lottery Win of a Deal" for Reasons of Defence - Now he Intends to try his Luck in Court]. Helsingin Sanomat (in Finnish).
- 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 keep. And it looks like the nominator has changed their mind about seeking deletion so this is unanimous. Liz Read! Talk! 06:43, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
Restricted military area
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Restricted military area ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
WP:NOTDICT per Isaidnoway's PROD. voorts ( talk/ contributions) 20:42, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the
list of Military-related deletion discussions.
voorts (
talk/
contributions)
20:42, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Only citation is a dictionary entry. No evidence found that this is a notable concept. WeirdNAnnoyed ( talk) 20:59, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
- Comment: This could probably be an article if there was expansion with discussions of the implication of a restricted military area on things like protest rights or other civil liberties. I'm certain these sources exist in scholarly sources like law reviews, but as is the article is pretty much a dictionary definition. TulsaPoliticsFan ( talk) 23:37, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
- Weak keep - As per TulsaPoliticsFan, I could see this being expanded to discuss the legal implications of such areas. For example, this
[1] would be an academic RS that includes discussion of differences between military and non-military areas in terms the powers granted to (military) authorities in Finland.Another example of a potential (albeit non-academic) source on Finland specifically would be this
Kaleva news story that states, among other things, that
no events that could includes features of political activity are held on [the FDF's] military areas
. [2] The same story appears to have been reported on by multiple other Finnish newspapers. There's also a bunch of news stories about photography near and on (sometimes temporary) restricted military areas in Finland. [3] The last decade or so has also seen a rather a constant stream of news about land ownership inside and close to restricted military areas in Finland, especially from the perspective of foreign nationals purchasing land. [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9]These alone push me to a weak keep, and I'd imagine there's plenty more in other languages and about other countries. - Ljleppan ( talk) 09:27, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 20:42, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
Delete- Wikipedia is not a dictionary. This article is a one sentence definition.
- The concept, "restricted military area", is so broad and nebulous it's hard to visualize what a full article might consist of. We could just as easily set ourselves the task to write articles about "scary places" or "boring drives". There may be better articles about specific topics like the one in Finland that Tulsa Fan cited above. That would be more along the lines of "scary Icelandic lava pit" or "boring Long Island bus route"
- --
A. B. (
talk •
contribs •
global count)
03:49, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
- I think this is a pretty unuseful bunch of comparisons. First, as to what the article would look like, I'd imagine something along the lines of
Military base or perhaps
Battery (crime). As to what separates a "restricted military area" from "scary places", I'm not aware of any polity where "scary place" was defined in law and designated "scary places" were guarded by armed dudes who had the right to restrict the basic civil rights of those who enter the "scary place". The reason I used Finland for my example is that I have easy access to sources about it. I'm sure similar sources could be found about the US, which has laws like
this in the books, and for the UK which has laws like
this. I doubt similar laws exist for "scary places" or "boring drives".
Ljleppan (
talk)
06:02, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
- Keep per Visviva's generous offer below. -- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count) 03:03, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
- I think this is a pretty unuseful bunch of comparisons. First, as to what the article would look like, I'd imagine something along the lines of
Military base or perhaps
Battery (crime). As to what separates a "restricted military area" from "scary places", I'm not aware of any polity where "scary place" was defined in law and designated "scary places" were guarded by armed dudes who had the right to restrict the basic civil rights of those who enter the "scary place". The reason I used Finland for my example is that I have easy access to sources about it. I'm sure similar sources could be found about the US, which has laws like
this in the books, and for the UK which has laws like
this. I doubt similar laws exist for "scary places" or "boring drives".
Ljleppan (
talk)
06:02, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
- Keep and expand as a significant legal/regulatory concept meriting a
broad-concept article, although definitely a tough one. I don't think there's a real question of notability here; plenty has certainly been written about restricted military areas. A plausible prototype of coverage can be found at
de:Militärisches Sperrgebiet, which is currently inaccurately interwikied to
military exclusion zone. Our legal coverage is awash in BCA-shaped holes, partly because they're very hard to write from a global standpoint, partly because we've never had a robust editor corps for legal topics anyway, and partly because BCAs tend to be a slippery mess in general. IMO the optimal approach here is definition + any comparative scholarship we can dredge up (probably not much in this case) + bulleted list of paragraphs briefly summarizing the concept as applied in each country. We could start with US, UK, and Finland paragraphs based on the links posted in this discussion. I'll take a stab if the article is kept. --
Visviva (
talk)
01:08, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
- Thank you @ Visviva! I'll change my !vote. Thank you also for introducing me to the notion of a "broad-concept article" - that's what I was struggling to articulate above with my talk of scary places and boring drives.
- I have confidence in your ability to pull this off.
A. B. (
talk •
contribs •
global count)
03:01, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
- Keep and expand this notable topic. Okoslavia ( talk) 09:06, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
- Keep Although I am the nom, I mainly nominated this because I agreed with the PROD at the time, but I have now decided that this should be kept per @ Visviva and Ljleppan. voorts ( talk/ contributions) 00:26, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
References
- ^ Järvenpää, Marika (2016). "Viranomaisten toimivaltuudet kohteiden suojaamisessa hybridiuhkia vastaan" [Powers of authorities in protecting targets against hybrid threats]. Tiede ja ase (in Finnish). 74.
- ^ "Puolustusvoimat esti Suomen Sisun juhlat sotilasalueella" [Finnish Defence Forces Blocks Suomen Sisu's Party inside Military Area]. Kaleva (in Finnish). 11 November 2013.
- ^ Vuorinen, Terho (23 August 2018). "Tilanne sotilaiden ja poliisin välillä kärjistyi Tikkakoskella – sanailun jälkeen komisariota uhattiin rynnäkkökiväärillä" [An Encounter Between Soldiers and Police Escalated in Tikkakoski - A Police Officer was Threatened with an Assault Rifle Following an Exchange of Words]. Ilta Sanomat (in Finnish).
- ^ Malin, Tuula (16 October 2014). "IL paljastaa: Sotilasalue myytiin ulkomaalaisille" [Iltalehti Reveals: Military Area was Sold to Foreigners]. Iltalehti (in Finnish).
- ^ Kerkkänen, Tuomas (1 November 2016). "Puolustusministeriö selvittää venäläisten maakauppoja sotilasalueiden liepeiltä – työ pidetty piilossa" [Ministry of Defence is Looking Into Russian Land Purchases near Military Areas]. Yle uutiset (in Finnish).
- ^ STT (20 April 1017). "Puolustusministeri Niinistö: Valtion etuosto-oikeus maakaupoissa olisi järkevää" [Minister of Defence Niinistö: State Right of Pre-Emption in Land Sales Would be Sensible]. Kaleva (in Finnish).
- ^ Kaarakainen, henri (20 April 2017). "Valtiolle halutaan lunastusoikeus maakaupoissa" [State Wants Right of Pre-Emption in Land Sales]. Ruotuväki (in Finnish).
- ^ Paananen, Arja (1 March 2019). "Uusi tiukka laki hyväksyttiin: Venäläisille maata vain erikoisluvalla" [Strict New Law Approved: Land Sold to Russian on by Special Permit] (in Finnish).
- ^ Nieminen, Rami (14 July 2022). "Kun Venäjä hyökkäsi Ukrainaan, valtio esti Seppo Sergei Kapasen "lottovoittodiilin" maanpuolustuksellisista syistä - Nyt hän aikoo kokeilla onneaan oikeusteitse" [When Russian Invaded Ukraine, the State Blocked Seppo Sergei Kapanen's "Lottery Win of a Deal" for Reasons of Defence - Now he Intends to try his Luck in Court]. Helsingin Sanomat (in Finnish).
- 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.