Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Philippic


 * 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. postdlf (talk) 19:38, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Philippic

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Wikipedia is not a dictionary. This article merely repeats what is said elsewhere in the encylopedia, and any cross-reference to Philippic can simply be linked to Wiktionary here. GeorgeLouis (talk) 02:33, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 03:46, 31 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep Even the current version of the article clearly transcends a dictionary definition. Several books by serious academics have been devoted to the speeches in which Demosthenes denounced Phillip II, and the term has later been applied to a certain attacking and denunciatory rhetorical technique, which has also been discussed in great detail in reliable sources, far beyond a dictionary definition.  Cullen 328  Let's discuss it  04:54, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 03:46, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 03:47, 31 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep This is not a dictionary-style entry and, even if it were, it wouldn't be a reason to delete as one would expect this to be a blue link, leading to some exposition of the topic. Warden (talk) 13:34, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep tentatively as a particular theme or style or rhetoric. Needs vast improvement, obviously, but article is not a lexical entry. Cynwolfe (talk) 14:51, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep -- This is car more than a dictionary entry. I would like to see it expanded with something more on Demosthenes Philippics (with a "main" link) to articles on them.  The textual citation "Ad Brut" needs expansion, and probably a link.  Peterkingiron (talk) 10:45, 4 September 2013 (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.