- 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. Withdrawn (non-admin closure) Basalisk inspect damage⁄berate 16:50, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Open terrain (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
WP:OR mini-essay. Basalisk inspect damage⁄berate 14:27, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep · This seems to simply be the definition you get if you search Google Books for the phrase "open terrain is". --▸∮truthious ᛔandersnatch◂ 15:20, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Great, do you have a reference? Basalisk inspect damage⁄berate 15:25, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- AfD is not cleanup, but you're welcome to work on the article yourself. If you have performed the search I described and can see that these three sentences are not some form of original research but simply describe the term, you should request that this AfD be closed. (Though honestly you should search for information about a topic before creating an AfD and involving everyone else.) --▸∮truthious ᛔandersnatch◂ 16:04, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok, I get it, but do you have a reference? It would make everything easier. Basalisk inspect damage⁄berate 16:25, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, I'm sure it would be easier if other people went and did basic research for you when you don't feel like doing it yourself. But that's not what AfD is for. If you want to improve the article, click on some of the "Find sources" links that you yourself created above with this AfD and grab some of the copious source material about the military concept of "open terrain" that is available. There are some actual military publications being returned by Google Books, you don't even have to go to the effort to search on a DOD site or in other specialized search engines. But if you don't want to work on the article, don't try to use a threat of deletion as leverage to get other people to do it for you. --▸∮truthious ᛔandersnatch◂ 16:53, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm sorry you feel that way. I don't really deal in "deletion threats" as I don't have access to the delete button. To be honest, I don't really think there's much to say than is already said in the article, which is just an unsourced definition. Sorry if you think me lazy for not being able to sort it out myself, but hey, if you can't be bothered to work on it either that's totally fine. Basalisk inspect damage⁄berate 17:05, 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]
- Ok, thanks for your advice. Basalisk inspect damage⁄berate 18:08, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- If you have not done any research to evaluate whether the topic of this article meets Wikipedia inclusion policy, do not intend to do such research, and your desire to delete the article has nothing to do with believing that it's an essay or contains originally-researched information not published elsewhere, you should say so explicitly because they are important points for other editors evaluating your nomination for deletion. --▸∮truthious ᛔandersnatch◂ 19:47, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok, thanks for your advice. Basalisk inspect damage⁄berate 18:08, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm sorry you feel that way. I don't really deal in "deletion threats" as I don't have access to the delete button. To be honest, I don't really think there's much to say than is already said in the article, which is just an unsourced definition. Sorry if you think me lazy for not being able to sort it out myself, but hey, if you can't be bothered to work on it either that's totally fine. Basalisk inspect damage⁄berate 17:05, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, I'm sure it would be easier if other people went and did basic research for you when you don't feel like doing it yourself. But that's not what AfD is for. If you want to improve the article, click on some of the "Find sources" links that you yourself created above with this AfD and grab some of the copious source material about the military concept of "open terrain" that is available. There are some actual military publications being returned by Google Books, you don't even have to go to the effort to search on a DOD site or in other specialized search engines. But if you don't want to work on the article, don't try to use a threat of deletion as leverage to get other people to do it for you. --▸∮truthious ᛔandersnatch◂ 16:53, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok, I get it, but do you have a reference? It would make everything easier. Basalisk inspect damage⁄berate 16:25, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- AfD is not cleanup, but you're welcome to work on the article yourself. If you have performed the search I described and can see that these three sentences are not some form of original research but simply describe the term, you should request that this AfD be closed. (Though honestly you should search for information about a topic before creating an AfD and involving everyone else.) --▸∮truthious ᛔandersnatch◂ 16:04, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Great, do you have a reference? Basalisk inspect damage⁄berate 15:25, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Probable deleteWiktionary redirect as it is currently no more than a dictionary definition. The last 2 sentences merely duplicate information given in the first sentence: "few obstacles to travel"="much faster passage". I realise this is a very new article, so possibly there is something more to say about it - but if so, what? --Colapeninsula (talk) 16:35, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]- Dicdef + plausible search term ≠ delete! If we don't want this particular content then we might redirect, or disambiguate, or soft redirect to wiktionary. No way should "Open terrain" be a redlink!—S Marshall T/C 19:10, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 15:35, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Wiktionary redirect It's a definition, not an article. Intothatdarkness 16:11, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep It is our policy to improve stubs, not to delete them. Warden (talk) 12:55, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep No one uses wiktionary. This can expand to more than a definition. Show when open terrain is important for military battles, for animals looking for prey, or whatnot perhaps. [1] 212 Wikipedia articles have the phrase "open terrain" in them. Dream Focus 13:03, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Withdraw - since the re-write, my nominating rationale certainly no longer applies. Basalisk inspect damage⁄berate 16:50, 12 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.