Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Active citizenship

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 no consensus. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:41, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Active citizenship

I found this on RC patrol and PRODed it as a neologism, buzzword, and dictdef. PROD was contested. Erik the Rude 17:29, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

I can repeat the same arguments that I placed on the article's talk page here. I'm the creator of the article. I understand the concerns regarding this term as a buzzword, but I'm convinced that enough organizations and mission statements refer to it to warrant definition as a unique term. A Google search for the exact phrase returns over 1,100,000 appearances of the exact term on the Internet. Since the PROD, I've added external links to the most prominent organizations that consider the philosophy to be part of their mission statement, and I've referred to concerns about the term's "buzzword" status within the article. Clearly, I'm in favor of keeping the article. skeeJay 22:01, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Comment It sounds bizzarre, but is it possible for a redirect/merge to Civic Duty (which redirects to Citizenship)?Yanksox 22:36, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Also I think worth pointing out that there are 14 English-language Wikipedia articles that refer to the exact phrase, a number of which were wikilinked to an article that didn't exist. skeeJay 15:46, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

• Keep, it does seem to be a popular buzz phrase for what used to be called Civic Duty. Civic Duty should be redirected to it, since currently Civic Duty just redirects to Citizenship, which mostly describes the legal framework of being a citizen of a country. Jll 10:57, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
• Ideally I think this should Redirect and Merge to a (yet to be written) Civic Duty article. CD is a proper subject, but AC is still a buzzword and neologism. Armon 15:25, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Seems like a neologism/dictdef to me. GentlemanGhost 22:33, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, --Ezeu 00:52, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Neologism for sure - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 01:37, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, WP:NEO. --Terence Ong 02:24, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, seems notable enough. --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:30, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Too waffly. Withdrawn ~ trialsanderrors 02:42, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep per lots of good and/or academic sources indicating widespread usage in the United Kingdom (from the last link, in Sociology the journal, by Dr Marinetto: "The notions of active citizenship and community involvement have become increasingly prominent in political discussions and policy practices within Britain in the past 15 years.") Ziggurat 03:31, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

  Well do you think you could turn it into a useful article? Who coined the term, what's an authorative definition, how does it differ from related terms (aka community involvement), what's a textbook that covers the subject in detail, etc.? ~ trialsanderrors 03:46, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I'd love to, but don't really have the expertise. I do think it's possible, so deleting the current (incomplete) article is not the best course of action. From the evidence I can gather it seems to be a fairly well established term in the UK (and appears to have been emphasized even in curriculum documents there [1]), and if kept the article will be expanded. In the vote above I was attempting to counterpoint the claims that it is a neologism and buzzword; there seem to be sufficient sources to indicate that it is not, and I don't think there are any other grounds for deletion. Ziggurat 03:57, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm still not convinced that this is a valid philosophical concept as the article claims, but I'm withdrawing my vote. I hope someone will expand the article though. ~ trialsanderrors 04:13, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I hope so too. Pity there isn't a general Wikiproject for politics... Ziggurat 04:19, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep per Ziggaurat. Kevin_b_er 04:05, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per Erik the Rude. Most instances of the phrase don't seem to be as a specific term. It is similar to "good citizenship", which gets more Google results. -- Kjkolb 22:00, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep this term is increasingly being used by teh british media. It may be a bit of a neogalism bit it is a widely used one and the subject has the scope for being more than just a dicdef. Ydam 11:08, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom Adambiswanger1 17:16, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep I agree with skeeJay. Valid arguments and appears to be substantiated by increasing use in the media. -- ^Evanx(tag?) 17:43, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as proposal - doesn't seem to be much more than a dictionary definition here. michaelCurtis ^talk+ _{contributions} 17:51, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. This concept is definitely notable in the UK. I have added some information, unfortunately unsourced as I don't have the time to dig around for references in a topic I'm not particularly interested in. CaptainJ ^{(t | c | e)} 21:43, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Why not? --Ephilei 03:01, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• keep This is one of three key themes of Scottish Executive policy (para 13), with lifelong learning and social inclusion. I'll try and update the page soon, but i don't want to do this if its going to be deleted. whether or not it is a buzzword is kinda irrelevant if governments are using it, as far as i know its a european policy concept, but might be known as different names event when written in English, sidenote, i found the page by doing a direct search for it on wikipedia, as although Scottish exec documents reference the term, they don't seem to define it!! I'm sure Scotland isn't alone in this. --Gavinski

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.