Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Polemic

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, defaulting to Keep. NawlinWiki 20:26, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Polemic

Polemic (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Article is origional research and dictionary definition. No source after 4 years, and no encyclopediac content beyond definition. Sefringle^Talk 04:46, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

• Weak Delete. It's not original research per se, but it is a dictionary definition and fails WP:NOT. Wiktionary already has an entry for it. If there were more to say about polemics, which is a branch of oratory, an article wouldn't be amiss, but this is nothing more than a dicdef. --Charlene 05:26, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Delete. Agree with Charlene. nlyons162 17:58, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

• Is there a way to make this redirect to wikitionary's entry?
• Keep, the best solution for the raised problems is to edit the article. This is linked to by 100s of articles. John Vandenberg 12:00, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 12:00, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, afd is not an improvement mechanism. the idea is notalbe and encyclopedic, it should have been marked for improvement, citation needed, not afd. oh and oratory is just one side of polemics. --Buridan 12:50, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

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.