Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dilemma


 * 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) Szzuk (talk) 10:47, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Dilemma

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Delete to make room for disambiguation. The current article is a WP:DICDEF, and I'm not aware of any primary use of the term that isn't. Paradoctor (talk) 01:19, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Strong keep. I think the Dilemma would make a great broad concept article. The concept of a dilemma isn't something that needs disambiguation: it's pretty clear that in any usage, a dilemma is a choice between mutually disjoint options. Of course the article should be scrapped: currently, it is nothing more than a dictionary definition, and a bad one at that. However, there is plenty of room to sketch different uses of dilemma, and plenty of good source. We should discuss dilemma in formal logic, moral dilemmas, notions of dilemma in deontic logic, and the popular usage. BenKuykendall (talk) 02:55, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
 * The Britannica article is a dictionary definition. The SEP entry simply applies the dictionary definition in a particular context, it gives no information about the concept of "dilemma". As a dilemma, there is no different between ethical dilemmas and, say economical dilemmas. It's always "none of the options is particularly appealing". I don't see the meat, unlike rock, or particle. Paradoctor (talk) 03:29, 14 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep. Ethical dilemmas, Buridan's ass-type practical dilemmas, and economic strategy points such as the Triffin dilemma can be in a base article. Applying WP:SUMMARY here is going to be beneficial, and more so than moving the existing dilemma (disambiguation). Sure, the area looks undeveloped here, but a constructive approach can be taken. Charles Matthews (talk) 05:55, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep I thought of nominating it for deletion but after I did some search I decided to just tag it. Instead of dab page (disambiguating what?), a broadconcept page where all the types, forms and its pop usage are discussed will be better. –Ammarpad (talk) 07:53, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
 * "disambiguating what?" → dilemma (disambiguation) Paradoctor (talk) 12:57, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, I am aware of that. I mean what else do we need to disambiguate in "Dilemma"? Nothing. Except to redirect it which is essentially deletion. –Ammarpad (talk) 14:13, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Huh? I explicitly stated that the article should be deleted to make way for the disambiguation page to be moved here. I don't see how redirecting comes into play. Paradoctor (talk) 14:55, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
 * "essentially deletion" No, it isn't. What little content we have is covered by Wiktionary. The speculations on what there might be are not supported by sources, and haven't been for thirteen years. That leaves me kind of pessimistic. Paradoctor (talk) 15:00, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, and I made myself clear from the start. I am against deletion, the very deletion you're proposing. This leaves us with only options for redirect or keep, and I opted for keep. Moreover state of article doesn't determine its notability, see WP:NEXIST. –Ammarpad (talk) 15:45, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
 * That's right. It also says "Notability is based on the existence of suitable sources". See my comment below. Give me sources or give me deletion. Paradoctor (talk) 15:59, 14 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep. I started engaging with this article and its defenders back in 2015. It was longer then but consisted in the main of lists and unreferenced assertions, which put it outside of WP guidelines. What is needed, if the article is to be taken beyond dictionary definition status, is for some of its knowledgeable defenders to create a comprehensive and properly sourced article. Expert rewriting can be the only justification for retaining what, until now, has just been a catalogue of amateuristic incompetence. Sweetpool50 (talk) 11:41, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
 * If I understand you correctly, you !vote keep because you think there might be substance that just nobody has bothered to locate? ;) Paradoctor (talk) 15:00, 14 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment Leafing through the article's history, I notice two points:
 * The article was never sourced throughout its entire history, so the presumption now has to be that there are none that would justify more than a disambiguation page. I. e., burden of proof is on those who say there are.
 * After more than 13 years, the article's current state is not substantially different from the very first version.
 * Paradoctor (talk) 14:55, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment on the comment: path dependence isn't, I believe, in the deletion guidelines. What is there is WP:BEFORE. As quite often, I deprecate nominations that apparently ignore that guideline. I'm finding plenty in Google Books, one of the suggestions it makes. Charles Matthews (talk) 04:45, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

@Paradoctor, it isn't good strategy to argue the toss with every contributor here. Some of them make valid points in favour of developing the article; it's for them, however, to prove their point by actually doing some writing. Without that, the article fails on the grounds of WP:NOTDIC, and no amount of consensus !voting is going to change the fact that historically this article has never met guidelines and on that account should be deleted. Exactly the same debate took place some years ago on the subject of Miser. It was only saved at the last moment by one of the interested editors really doing some editing. Sweetpool50 (talk) 16:37, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep If you want to make it a disambiguation page, request a move for this situation. SemiHypercube ✎ 16:40, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 19:41, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 19:41, 14 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep per WP:HEYMANN. It was in a dictionary-definition-like state for a long time, but now it's in better shape. Importantly, there is now enough content to demonstrate that a broad-concept article is feasible, and to show a path to one. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 15:04, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep At this present stage, it is good enough to be a stand alone article for new content and sources were recently added. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 10:48, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep. Obviously valid topic for a broad-concept whatever. --Doncram (talk) 06:37, 20 November 2018 (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.