Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Closed community


 * 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   keep. As noted by most !voters, this article has possibilities and there is coverage. AFD is not clean-up, so there is no requirement to improve the article while it is at AFD. That being said, this article could really use a guiding hand to bring it up to snuff. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:19, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Closed community

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

WP:NOTE No context Meclee (talk) 19:47, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete Wikipedia is not a dictionary, move to wiktionary if possible Seasider91 (talk) 19:50, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. WP:TOOLITTLE, or the 7th Notability Fallacy -> no valid reason for deletion; "even a small amount of information meeting the general notability guideline can be eligible for inclusion", and this is a notable sociological concept. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 22:21, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS JAMMMY &#9734;&#9733; 23:45, 23 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete Disagree that it is notable sociological concept. Not found in many sociology dictionaries or encyclopedias. Meclee (talk) 02:56, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
 * 69,000 Google book uses of the term argue otherwise. This term is commonly used and deserves an entry. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 10:39, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete Might be a (very) frequently used term, but it is frankly an entirely self-explanatory combination of words and doesn't require an encyclopedia entry to explain. If it did, we would need the following articles: Frequently used, entirely self-explanatory, combination of words, doesn't require and encyclopedia entry. I bet all of those have lots of googlebooks hits too. That don't mean nothin'. Famous  dog   (c) 13:12, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. Listen up people. This subject has significant coverage here, here, and here. It has technical and historical significance covering the biological and social sciences from 1963 to the year 2008. And that's only for sources I've found in a simple Google search. This stub can be improved. And no it's not a simple dictionary entry. It's encyclopedic for its significant impact on health care and society and its wide technical coverage in academic literature. It's not a dictionary term. The subject is a strategic concept to manage and control diseases as well as handle communities. PolicarpioM (talk) 05:49, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Very well put. Perhaps you could expand the article with some of the sources you found? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 11:17, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 04:29, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

 
 * Keep. The article is currently only a stub, but it should be possible to find reliable sources that discuss different religious sects that live in closed communities. So I think that it would be better to improve the article than to delete it. CodeTheorist (talk) 12:56, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete. Most of the Google Books/Scholar results use "closed community" as a rather vague descriptive term for a specific community, but I can't find any sources discussing the concept of a closed community. And I'm surprised, because it seems like it should be a notable sociological concept, but in the absence of sources, I have to !vote delete. DoctorKubla (talk) 16:25, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Good definitions in academic literature are rare. I've written a number of articles on sociology, and in only few cases I was able to cite a proper definition, more often than note, we have to cobble it from how it is used and briefly described in various works. This is most likely no exception, other than it hasn't really been expanded much. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 11:17, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete and move to Wiktionary if people feel strongly about keeping the information somewhere. If there was enough content here to merit an encyclopedic entry, I'd be all for keeping, but as the article is written now I believe it would fit better in a dictionary. Velinath (talk) 18:39, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Being a stub is no criteria for deletion. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 11:17, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:04, 10 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep, with WP:PRESERVE, regardless of how the article is written now, unless someone actually believes there aren't any reliable sources out there which could be used to expand this article, the 'dictionary definition' arguments don't apply much. Darryl from Mars (talk) 14:07, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment. Excuse me. WP:DICTIONARY specifically states the major differences between an encyclopedia and dictionary. For Wiktionary, "articles are about the actual words or idioms in their title and all the things it can denote. The entry octopus is about the word "octopus": its part of speech, its pluralizations, its usage, its etymology, its translations into other languages, and so forth." For Wikipedia, "articles are about a person, or a people, a concept, a place, an event, a thing etc. that their title can denote. The article octopus is about the animal: its physiology, its use as food, its scientific classification, and so forth." The delete and move suggestion to Wiktionary certainly runs counter to Wikipedia policy. Also, not being able to find discussions of a concept is not a sufficient reason for deletion. Multiple sources describing the concept are available. I want to expand this stub at a later date. PolicarpioM (talk) 08:04, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep—Solid definitions exist in the anthropology of peasant life ("closed corporate peasant community" being a key term of reference in the literature, as originated here: ) and seemingly in sociology as well (see this article claiming in its abstract: "To address this issue, I develop the closed community thesis and argue that the theological and value orientation of white Conservative Protestant congregations undermines the creation of bridging group ties."). Wolf does specify a definition: "That is to say, in both areas they [these rural communities] are corporate organizations, maintaining a perpetuity of rights and membership; and they are closed corporations, because they limit these privileges to insiders, and discourage close participation of members in the social relations of the larger society."--Carwil (talk) 19:45, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment - this diamond in the rough has possibilities. Can someone incubate or saddbox this one? 17:40, 14 July 2012 (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.