Wikipedia:Requests for deletion/Requests/2016/Controversy

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not change it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No more changes should be made to this discussion.

The outcome of this request for deletion was to Keep. Chenzw Talk 14:07, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Controversy

Controversy (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete) · close request

Rus793 has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: This is more a dictionary definition and is already at Wiktionary. It has remained unimproved for eight years. User:Rus793 (talk) 14:19, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please discuss this request below, but keep in mind that you shouldn't vote on everything and that there may be options other than "keep" or "delete", such as merging.

Discussion

Keep: WP:SOFIXIT. I just do not understand. The article has meaning, it has wikilinks and it is relatively simple to read. When did it become a crime to be a stub? Fylbecatulous talk 16:39, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The article is accused of being a dicdef, not a stub. For me, it's borderline, so...

Keep. There's a tiny bit more than I would call a dicdef. --Auntof6 (talk) 16:47, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to all above including my comment: I thought I understood that our preference is to have an article on Simple, (even brief) than to have to use a wikt link to Wiktionary...'controversy' as a concept needs more than a dicdef and the deletion reason states: This is more a dictionary definition and is already at Wiktionary. It has remained unimproved for eight years. So the accusation is what? to me it is about the unimproved stub. Again, if we delete based on unimprovement of a stub within a certain time frame, this sets a precident that sleeping stubs are sitting ducks. Fylbecatulous talk 13:02, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There are many controversies, so we could give examples: many people in the church wrote to atack teachings they considered wrong/heresies. The election of several popes was controversial to the point thar diferent groups elected/supported different candidates. In short: a lot can be added, and even if it is not, the article should be kept.-Eptalon (talk) 20:34, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Little has been made of it, but the concept is important, and can be developed. It means dispute or contention, esp. of contrary opinions (SOED). Above all, this is characteristic of open societies and democracy. So keep. Macdonald-ross (talk) 15:37, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This request is due to close on 14:19, 13 June 2016 (UTC), seven days after it was filed, although it may be closed earlier at the discretion of an administrator.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not change it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No more changes should be made to this discussion.