Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Constitutional hardball


 * 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. (non-admin closure) DannyS712 (talk) 06:26, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Constitutional hardball

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I Prod'ed this as WP:NOTDICT; the tag was removed with the irrelevant rationale; 'meets notabity guidelines'. It is still a dictionary definition, and I believe that the underlying principle is way older than 2004, as claimed. TheLongTone (talk) 16:09, 13 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep - significant, in-depth coverage in reliable sources, including academic source; concept has gotten attention in political science and law scholarship. Neutralitytalk 16:36, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Read the nomination rationale. This is a definition of a term.TheLongTone (talk) 14:22, 14 January 2019 (UTC)≤
 * No, it's an explanation of a concept. This is not a dictionary definition any more than our articles on (to take a few random examples) procedural democracy, political mobilization, rule of law, etc. are dictionary definitions. Neutralitytalk 16:18, 14 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment - much like the page Whataboutism, this is a slogan. I agree it seems likely that this combination of words has been used in history classrooms for years to describe in particular court-packing.  This usage note deserves a wiktionary page.  The text in the article is good, it deserves to be kept.  Should it be merged to a larger article (Constitutional Crisis#Tactics, for example), or should it feed the google knowledge engine an infobox and blurb?  I don't know. Others will perhaps have stronger opinions.   SashiRolls t ·  c 16:56, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Rename the article is named after a buzzword (which is probably a non-notable neologism). The general topic regarding political norms in the United States is surely notable.  I don't see a good merge target, so perhaps this should be renamed. power~enwiki ( π,  ν ) 17:42, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:46, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:46, 16 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep. My gut said "delete," but after looking around a bit, this seems to be a thing:
 * The article goes well past WP:DICDEF. TJRC (talk) 23:35, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
 * The article goes well past WP:DICDEF. TJRC (talk) 23:35, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
 * The article goes well past WP:DICDEF. TJRC (talk) 23:35, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
 * The article goes well past WP:DICDEF. TJRC (talk) 23:35, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
 * The article goes well past WP:DICDEF. TJRC (talk) 23:35, 16 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep It seems like WP:BEFORE has not been performed, a quick look in Google Books shows plenty of sources, ditto in Google Scholar - . Should easily pass WP:GNG. Hzh (talk) 01:44, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep No compliance with WP:Before, which creates a series of hurdles before deletion is appropriate, and creates a hierarchy for consideration before imposing the Wikipedia equivalent of capital punishment. Keeping it will be wise also.
 * If you just click on the Article Search Google Books link and Scholar, you will find a whole library full of books and scholarly articles dealing with this subject. And this is also regularly part of the discourse in common news sources.  These are at the top of this WP:AFD nomination, and it is easy to click on.
 * Exceeds WP:GNG. Already way more than a dictionary definition.
 * It should inform all of us whether this exercise should continue.
 * No doubt the article and sourcing can be improved. But that is part of the normal editing process, and no reason to delete.  7&amp;6=thirteen (☎) 22:25, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. 7&amp;6=thirteen (☎) 22:49, 18 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep If the NOM had done a WP:BEFORE they would have noticed. Searching Google for a definition, the first entries for the subject come from the law schools at Yale, Georgetown, Columbia and Harvard.  Other WP:RS quote those law discussions.  Simply put, its a thing which the article covers, supported by sources.  I'll go further.  This is an example of a frivolous AfD.  I think the NOM should be penalized for wasting our time. Trackinfo (talk) 23:22, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I know there is no process to penalize frivolous nominators who ignore the WP:BEFORE, but there should be. Trackinfo (talk) 23:26, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
 * How about for those who ignore WP:AGF? TJRC (talk) 05:58, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
 * While I assume TJRC meant that comment as a sarcastic personal attack against me, there actually is a point to be made. Editors who are adjudicated as having violated WP:AGF can have their editing privileges removed.  There is no enforcement against editors who abuse WP:BEFORE.  I am not referring to the Nominator of this ill founded AfD, but there are some who are serial abusers of creating *fDs without performing WP:BEFORE and I do think there should be a point system to adjudicate abuse so those editors should lose their *fD nominating privileges. Trackinfo (talk) 06:55, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Of course, we all WP:AGF because it is required. Moreover, the implicit threats to those who transgress is a mere Whataboutism diversion.  I trust we will be WP:Civil and comment on the edits and article, not on each other.
 * The article should not be deleted. 7&amp;6=thirteen (☎) 16:25, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Especially not with so many viable merge targets. Given WP:NOTPAPER and all, maybe a page like WP:RULEZ would be a good !place to fortify and re-constitute wiki-praxis. What do you think, 13? ^^ SashiRolls t ·  c 19:05, 19 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Merge There's nothing new about this – see What America can learn from the fall of the Roman republic, for example.  We don't need a recentist baseball metaphor for this when there are plenty of other pages already, including:
 * Abuse of process
 * Corruption
 * End justifies the means
 * Gaming the system
 * Gerrymandering
 * Legal abuse
 * Legal opportunism
 * Legal technicality
 * Letter and spirit of the law
 * Machiavellianism
 * Malicious compliance
 * Realpolitik
 * Rules lawyer
 * Sharp practice
 * Andrew D. (talk) 23:50, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
 * It's a big encyclopaedia. Almost 5.8 million articles.  WP:Not paper.  As your list suggests, there is some overlap, but they are not synonymous.  No reason to merge, IMO.  <b style="color:#060">7&amp;6=thirteen</b> (<b style="color:#000">☎</b>) 18:46, 19 January 2019 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.