- 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 delete. --Ezeu 06:32, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - dicdef Mais oui! 16:43, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Untrue. The article is not a dictionary article about a word or phrase. It is a stub encyclopaedia article about the concept of subjugation. Please do not conflate stub encyclopaedia article and dictionary article. The two are very different things. Uncle G 16:59, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete or transwiki. Reads like a dic-def to me. If it were converted into an article, I might reconsider. Agent 86 17:36, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- It already is an article. It is a stub. Your idea of what constitutes a dictionary definition is erroneous. Uncle G 12:39, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Dicdef with a bunch of what appear to be randomly selected external links (17th century French literature, the Hungarian uprising, and slasher flicks?). Fan1967 17:45, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The concept of subjugation is a broad one. The further reading implies that there's a lot to write on the subject, because people already have written a lot on the subject. You would delete an encyclopaedia article because it's a stub with clear potential for expansion? Please refresh your memory of our Wikipedia:Deletion policy. The problem articles are stubs that have no potential for expansion. Uncle G 18:20, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- It is not a stub of an encyclopedia article. It is a stub of a dictionary definition. If you believe there is potential for an encyclopedic article, I suggest you try expanding it with something besides links. Fan1967 18:23, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Wrong. It is a stub encyclopaedia article. Your idea of what constitutes a dictionary definition is erroneous. You also need to familiarize yourself with the idea of cooperative editing. An article does not need to be written all in one go, and it is not necessary for one editor to write the entire article from start to finish too, no matter what you may demand to the contrary. If you want the article expanded, be bold and expand it yourself. I've started you off with a few sources that you can work from. Uncle G 12:39, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- It is not a stub of an encyclopedia article. It is a stub of a dictionary definition. If you believe there is potential for an encyclopedic article, I suggest you try expanding it with something besides links. Fan1967 18:23, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The concept of subjugation is a broad one. The further reading implies that there's a lot to write on the subject, because people already have written a lot on the subject. You would delete an encyclopaedia article because it's a stub with clear potential for expansion? Please refresh your memory of our Wikipedia:Deletion policy. The problem articles are stubs that have no potential for expansion. Uncle G 18:20, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, dicdef. --Coredesat talk 22:06, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete dicdef per above. SM247 04:42, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Far too many editors appear to have the wrong idea of what constitutes a "dicdef". An article is not a dictionary article simply because it is short. (Indeed, many dictionary articles are rather long. I recommend editors that think that dictionary articles are short go and read some of the non-stub articles in Wiktionary.) A dictionary article is an article about a word or a phrase. It provides meanings, translations, quotations, etymologies, usage notes, pronunciations, inflections, synonyms, antonyms, and cross-references. An encyclopaedia article is about a person/place/concept/event/thing. Please read our articles on encyclopaedic dictionary and the use-mention distinction if this still isn't clear.
This article is about the concept of subjugation. It is currently a stub, a sociololgy stub no less. It contains a further reading section that indicates that there is much to write on the subject of subjugation, because other people have written a lot on the subject. We don't delete "dicdef"s. We delete stub articles that have no potential for expansion, i.e. articles for which there is no source material available that can be used to expand the article beyond stub status. Clearly, there is source material in this case, and there is scope for expansion beyond a stub. That that expansion has yet to take place is not grounds for deleting the article. Deletion is not the way to improve the encyclopaedia in this case. Expanding the article is. Our Wikipedia:Deletion policy explains this pretty clearly.
It's sad to see that so many editors are of the opinion that we should delete short encyclopaedia articles, even when there is apparent scope for their expansion from many sources. Keep. Uncle G 12:39, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- An article is not a dictionary article simply because it is short. Agreed. An article is a dictionary article because it contains nothing but a definition. Dictionary definition + external links does not make an encyclopedic article. It doesn't even make an encyclopedic stub. Fan1967 14:53, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Uncle, please remember to be civil and not lecture us at to what constitutes a stub and what constitutes a dictionary entry. A number of the editors commenting here have been around long enough that it's safe to assume they know the difference. I don't see any of them advocating to "delete short encyclopaedia articles". I see them advocating deletion of a dictionary definition. I stand by my prior comment, and concur with Fan1967. Agent 86 17:20, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- An article is not a dictionary article simply because it is short. Agreed. An article is a dictionary article because it contains nothing but a definition. Dictionary definition + external links does not make an encyclopedic article. It doesn't even make an encyclopedic stub. Fan1967 14:53, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Leave it, it's a stub and ought to stay. raptor 13:44, 5 July 2006 (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.