- 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 no consensus. MBisanz talk 08:48, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Requisition (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
Contested prod for two-year old dictionary definition that shows no potential for growth beyond its current state. Delete as per Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Allen3 talk 12:18, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete — dictionary definition. MuZemike (talk) 16:50, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: this article consists only of a dictionary definition and has a page on Wiktionary, which is where it belongs. Cliff smith talk 17:17, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The historical context that Daniel (talk · contribs) is talking about (You all looked at the article's history, right?) is probably World Wars I and II. They involved Germany's egregious flouting of the Hague Regulations, in particular Articles 46 and 52, governing requisition by an occupying army — the standard method of supporting such an army through the 19th century. There's plenty of source material on this, including discussion in books on international law, and analyses of the various military manuals of the world that shows how they now codify practices on requisition. We don't delete stubs with potential for expansion. And this article is exactly that. We might need an article on spoilation (the jus in bello concept), too. Keep. Uncle G (talk) 18:21, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I assume that in your eagerness to disparage the nomination with comments about not checking the history that you also noticed that Daniel (talk · contribs) has twice undeleted this article without having once expanded it beyond the dicdef stage or producing one of the many sources you claim exist. If these sources actually exist, and there is an encyclopedic subject related to this article's title, then please WP:PROVEIT because the appropriateness of this article has been repeatedly challenged. --Allen3 talk 19:55, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I wrote nothing disparaging about the nomination. Indeed, I wrote nothing about the nomination at all. But I did try to make sure that you were all on the same page and knew what I was talking about when I suddenly brought Daniel into the discussion. I have already told you, in detail, what the encyclopaedic subject by this title is. AFD is not a means for imposing deadlines by which articles must be expanded beyond stub status. Nor is a mechanism for bullying either Daniel or anyone else into doing such expansion. There is no deadline, perfection ab initio is not required, and we are all unpaid volunteers. If you want this article expanded beyond stub status, be bold and expand it. You should have a clear idea, now that I've explained what Daniel was getting at, what the subject is. Uncle G (talk) 12:27, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I assume that in your eagerness to disparage the nomination with comments about not checking the history that you also noticed that Daniel (talk · contribs) has twice undeleted this article without having once expanded it beyond the dicdef stage or producing one of the many sources you claim exist. If these sources actually exist, and there is an encyclopedic subject related to this article's title, then please WP:PROVEIT because the appropriateness of this article has been repeatedly challenged. --Allen3 talk 19:55, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep There is lots of potential for this stub as there are two separate topics here - the military context of compulsory demands for goods and services; the administrative start point for purchasing. The article needs to focus upon one of these topics and so what's needed is another article, not the deletion of this one. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:17, 15 October 2008 (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.