Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Renunciation of 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The result was Nomination withdrawn by nominator and Keep. Navou ^talk 23:19, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Renunciation of citizenship (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Appears to be nothing more than a dictionary defintion. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 05:54, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Renunciation of citizenship

• Just created a new page to replace an incorrect link (pointing to a religious meaning of "renunciation"). Will keep adding more info tomorrow.Dr.007 05:58, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete and Transwiki WP:NOT#DICT would appear to be the applicable principal here. Would it be better to move the information into the Wiktionary project? Navou ^talk 06:20, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
• I plan to add more content along the lines of Naturalization where denaturalization is also extensively covered. Do you think it should rather go there? Dr.007 06:29, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Surely this is a concept that offers potential for an article that goes far beyond a dictionary definition; there are plenty of legalities involved, the action has significant consequences, it probably works very differently in different countries, etc... For a couple of ideas about what this article could be, Cecil Adams wrote about this topic -- from a solely American viewpoint, sure, but that's not a bad start. -- Captain Disdain 10:55, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
• "Stub encyclopaedia article" is not synonymous with "dictionary article". (For one thing, complete dictionary articles are rarely short.) A dictionary article is an article about a word or an idiom. A stub encyclopaedia article is a short article about the person, place, concept, event, or thing that the word or phrase denotes. The concept here, quite clearly, is the renunciation of citizenship.

  Furthermore: Per our Wikipedia:Deletion policy, we only delete stub encyclopaedia articles that it is impossible to expand into full articles. We don't delete articles simply because they are currently stubs. To argue that an article that is currently a stub should be deleted, it must be shown that it is impossible to expand it beyond a stub. Neither NeoChaosX nor Navou have shown that. Indeed, neither has given any indication that xe has looked for sources at all. NeoChaosX certainly didn't have all that much time to look for sources in the 2 minutes between the creation of the stub and the time that xe first nominated it for deletion. Uncle G 12:37, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Seems like a reasonable subject for an article. Akihabara 13:38, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - for now, but it needs expansion. If necessary we can discuss this article again in a few months, and then possible delete it per Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Jayden54 14:40, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. The subject is legitimate, and referenced to a credible source. This is a stub that begins at the beginning. AFAIAC this sort of stub should be kept even if it takes a long time before anyone gets around to expanding it. - Smerdis of Tlön 15:03, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, needs expansion, not deletion. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 15:13, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, the topic is notable and the article could be expanded (for instance by describing the legal aspects, the procedures in different states, etc). TSO1D 15:46, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. Neo's nomination was valid. Here is what the article looked like to begin with: [1] The "give it a chance" argument [wasn't] especially valid [in that situation]. Stubs must have more than just a one-sentence dictionary definition to warrant existence. All that said, the article is filled out nicely now. Neo should probably retract his nomination unless he has another grievance. –Gunslinger47 17:25, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
  • It is not only valid, it is policy. I suggest that you read and famliarize yourself with our Wikipedia:Deletion policy, too. Uncle G 19:39, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Likewise, I suggest you read and familiarize yourself with WP:SPIDER. Similar to the deletion of a single sentence from Wikipedia, this is a matter of critical importance. –Gunslinger47 20:39, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
• Withdraw nomination I apologize to Dr.007. At the time this was created I really only saw a dictionary definition, and hadn't completely thought out how this could be expanded into a decent article. With that in mind and the they way the article has been expanded, I humbly ask that the nomination just be ended now. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 20:51, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. Thanks to everyone for encouragement and to NeoChaosX for his apologies, which are hereby accepted. Now it's my turn to apologize for inadvertently creating this debate by using the controversial approach of a stub. I book this under "lessons learned" and will from now on initiate new articles with more material. Dr.007 21:26, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
• Withdraw recommendation for the purposes of closing this debate. Navou ^talk 23:17, 4 January 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.