Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Infighting


 * 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   delete.  MBisanz  talk 21:01, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Infighting

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

This article consists of a dictionary definition and "case study". A previous editor has commented that "I still think this is a bit unencyclopedic". In essence, the definition may have a place in wictionary (though it is not very accurate) and the case study may be an event worthy of its own article. However, without the case study (which is an entirely random example) this is just a dicdef. The article is far from encyclopaedic and reeks of an essay and original research. Emeraude (talk) 20:00, 3 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete. The author citing "case studies" is WP:OR - the case studies do not come from WP:RS. Per nom this is a dictionary definition flesh out with original research.  Unusual? Quite  TalkQu  09:49, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:09, 8 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete. The topic as such could become a WP article one day but in its present shape it is hopeless. The definition at the top -- "Infighting is a term normally used in political parties and sometimes in religious organizations to describe dissenters from a hegemony" -- is unsourced and idiosyncratic.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 17:32, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep and expand. Articles that are presently definitions but clearly stand for notable concept like this are justified as stubs. Only unexpandable one with no potential for articles should be deleted as dicdef.   The case example is however dubious content here and does give the appearance of the article being inserted only for that.  DGG (talk) 04:48, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong delete As per discussions. Keep vote suggests "could" be made encyclopedic and notable.  When it is let us know. ChildofMidnight (talk) 07:15, 9 November 2008 (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.