Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Explanitory Poltical Theory

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 of the debate was KEEP, and move to correct spelling. Not knowing which of the two titles is more appropriate, I'll move it to Positive political theory since the rewrite chooses that as the first words of the article and create a redirect at Explanatory.... Anyone will be able to move over the redirect without being an admin, if they think the other title is better -Splash^talk 04:06, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Near-contentless and two words in the article title misspelled. I'm not sure a properly spelled version would grow any larger; I leave that to AfD's discretion. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 03:00, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Self-explanitory [sic]. Durova 03:12, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Google hits to notable universities; this article needs to be expanded and moved to Explanatory Political Theory. Denni ☯ 05:37, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete dic def. I'd be happy to reconsider if expanded. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:08, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: When we're at the level of mistitled articles, moving them to the proper spelling as well as waiting for a proper bit of content is the functional equivalent of deletion anyway. Again, no judgment on the (properly spelled) subject, but only on the content as it is and has been. Geogre 15:35, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep; it is a very short stub, but not exactly a dictionary definition. However, it should be moved to Positive Political Theory, which seems the most used term of the two. Paolo Liberatore (Talk) 20:53, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  I realized that I did not make my point well. That the subject of the article is notable seems agreed by most of the editors above (and a web search on Positive Political Theory shows that there are books and seminars on the topic). An article on this topic would be made of a definition and a (short or long) descripion of the subject. In this case, we only have a definition, which makes the article a stub. What I do not agree is that this is a dictionary definition. If this were true, we would be able to transwiki to wikctionary. Obviously, we can't: this is the definition of a subject (in this case, a theory), not the definition of a term (a dictionary definition). My reading (and intepretation) of the policies is that little content is not a ground of deletion, as long as a full article on the topic would be kept.
  Paolo Liberatore (Talk) 00:00, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per excellent reasoning above. Turnstep 03:08, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - what Google hits I have found are references to books which discuss the theory, and to university curricula which cover it. There seem to be no free-standing articles on the net - this looks like a trip to the library. There is no doubt in my mind of the currency of the term, but it is far beyond my knowledge of political science to discuss intelligently. I stil think this article should be kept, but tagged for cleanup/expansion. Denni ☯ 03:38, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment It took some time, but I finally found something that looks like an introduction to the topic [1]. I have added a sentences to the article from what's written there. I tagged the article as a stub, as it really need expansion. Paolo Liberatore (Talk) 13:35, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and correct the spelling ∾ Whatever the problems the original article may have had, the page has been significantly cleaned up by Paolo Liberatore and now appears to be an article with a future. → Ξxtreme Unction {^yakł_blah} 12:34, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and move per Paolo. - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] (W) AfD? 14:20, 22 November 2005 (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.