Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Obligation

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. Excluding the nom, there were no !votes that clearly supported deletion so "keep" closure would be appropriate (non-admin closure) TheSpecialUser ^TSU 01:09, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Obligation

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary, this "thingy" is not even a stub. The Banner _talk 15:51, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think this is really a case where nobody who came across this felt interested in properly sourcing it. The version that exists here is a ~~pretty decent~~ flawed but not useless encyclopedic exploration of the concept of obligation. It is, however, totally unsourced, and as such Bbb23 removed the unsourced material and converted the article to its current stub state. If I were judging this exclusively on its current state, I'd absolutely support deleting this per the nominator's rationale. However, there is a lot of scholarly writing on the concept of obligation. This should be reverted to its former form, cleaned up, and properly sourced. Having already obligated myself (ha, ha) to do something similar in another AfD yesterday, and having thus far failed to make good on this obligation (hee, hee), I'm hesitant to commit to the same here, but I think that's what should happen in any event. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 16:02, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 16:07, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve as per above argument - I realy don't understand why the article was converted to stub and the a disambiguation page... BO | Talk 17:24, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In fairness, the article had been tagged as being completely unreferenced since 2007, so removing the unsourced content was not only in line with policy but, in my opinion at least, not the wrong thing to do. Indeed, the restored content could -- and some may argue should -- be immediately removed because it is still unsourced, as it has been for five years. I only noticed that there was a former version because when I looked at the article's history I was shocked to see so much history behind a one-sentence stub :). But I concur that this should be kept if it can be sourced. I haven't looked closely at it yet, though. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 17:37, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Obligation is a major topic about which numerous books have been written such as Political Obligation; The Economy of Obligation; A Historical Introduction to the Law of Obligations; &c. AFD is not cleanup. If editors are unwilling or unable to actually work upon the article, they should please not suppose that AFD is a proper substitute. Warden (talk) 17:52, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep with a side of WTF? Obligation is an important legal and moral concept. Why would we delete that? DOSGuy (talk) 21:48, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Because this] is what I nominated and the present version is a revert to a recenly stubbed version, without any sources as was the case since 2007. If the article is so important, why did nobody see this and fixed it? The Banner _talk 00:00, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - I understand what you're saying, but I don't believe that articles should be deleted for being poorly written, they should be deleted if the topic doesn't belong on Wikipedia. There should be an obligation article on Wikipedia, so if the article is bad, someone should make it better. DOSGuy (talk) 00:53, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - WP:SOFIXIT! The Banner _talk 01:11, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - That probably won't be me, and I don't think that any of us have an obligation to fix the article if we oppose its deletion. But what do I know about obligation? Only that it deserves an article I guess. DOSGuy (talk) 01:45, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Obligation is a fundamental topic, which should be an article, and not a disambiguation page. Sometimes articles on broad concepts can be the hardest to write, but we must not shy away from undertaking the labor necessary to do so. bd2412 T 23:23, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:37, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:37, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but convert back to an improved disambiguation page. "Obligation" per se is essentially a dictionary definition, but there are a number of wikilinks out there that are intended for specific and encyclopedic obligation concepts (e.g. legal obligation, moral obligation, social olbigation and the "Holy day of obligation"). People linking or searching for "obligation" are likely to be looking for one of those concepts, which is exactly what a disambiguation page is for.--Kubigula (talk) 02:59, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Those are not ambiguous concepts, they are kinds of obligation. We have a policy - WP:DABCONCEPT - that prohibits the use of disambiguation pages to substitute for general concepts. bd2412 T 18:13, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Fair point. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 18:21, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - BD2412 does make a fair point. However, when I see people linking to obligation, I fied that they are not looking for the broad concept but are rather seeking the more nuanced notions of legal or moral obligation. So, I don't see the general concept as the primary meaning, and so disambigution is better. However, that is an editorial decision that we can always come back to later. The larger point is that we appear to have clear consensus against deleting the page.--Kubigula (talk) 04:04, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and convert to a disambiguation page per Kubigula's suggestion above. Indeed, I noticed from the GScholar link I supplied earlier that, as one might expect, scholarly writing on "obligation" covers several different major areas...and, as Kubigula notes, we have at least decent content on several of these areas and, more importantly, people searching for "obligation" are likely looking for one of these areas. per plethora of sources in the GScholar link I referenced earlier, as well as the sources Warden references. Somebody should really add these (I'm looking at you, everyone, as well as you, man in the mirror). ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 06:00, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree with those stating this is an important topic to have, books written about it, as Warden has found proving it is a notable topic. Dream Focus 17:58, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, educational, high encyclopedic value, good usage for the project, significant secondary source coverage. — Cirt (talk) 16:49, 9 September 2012 (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.