Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Policy advocacy


 * 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. For the record, I disagree with M.O.P.'s comment that the promise that there is a plethora of sourcing doesn't determine notability. WP:GNG requires that sources exist, not that they are actually included in the article. WP:V requires sources in the article but isnt a notability guideline. Also, in response to James500, the WP:BURDEN of proof is on those advocating to keep an article/material. Rebuttles aside, the consensus is to keep. Article has been improved, renamed, and sourced. v/r - TP 15:30, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Policy advocacy

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Not really much of an article here. All it does is explain the word in a short paragraph. This belongs on Wikitionary - not Wikipedia Oddbodz (talk) 23:02, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete We don't need an article defining the expression. The meat of the article, which is about scientists advocating for or against political policies, is important. However it should be in an article on "Science and politics" or perhaps in a section of scientist which whould discuss scientists acting in other roles, and the pluses and minuses of that. Steve Dufour (talk) 01:32, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 01:58, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 01:59, 3 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment. Is only a dictionary entry. MakeSense64 (talk) 13:17, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Dictionary entry, not encyclopedia article.--JayJasper (talk) 18:01, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep Just a quick peek at GoogleBooks reveals notability. Current status should not make a difference. Yes, right now it may be a dic def but as a fully formed article, it would be great. The concept deserves to be in an encyclopedia.--Coin945 (talk) 22:38, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
 * NOTDICTIONARY is not a reason to delete an article that is capable of expansion.
 * Google Books has 91,200 results for this, including, on the first page, books with the titles "Policy advocacy:Experiences and lessons from the Phillipines" and "Budget analysis and policy advocacy".
 * I am inclined to keep this. James500 (talk) 20:37, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - Contingent upon expansion of article with addition of reliable sources.--JayJasper (talk) 21:44, 5 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Relisting comment: I'm tempted to close this as a delete, but, since people keep claiming that there are sources, I'll give it another round. People arguing keep; remember that we can't keep an article around on the promise that there's a plethora of sourcing to be added to it, or that there are a bunch of Google hits. That is not a valid rationale. Please either expand the article or demonstrate notability conclusively, otherwise it will be deleted or soft-redirected to Wiktionary.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, m.o.p  05:27, 11 December 2011 (UTC)


 * "We can't keep an article around on the promise that there's a plethora of sourcing to be added to it". No, the burden is on the nominator to positively check and confirm that there are no sources available and that article cannot be expanded. See WP:BEFORE. James500 (talk) 20:57, 13 December 2011 (UTC) If you want to delete this, you need to positively tell us that it is not notable, not challenge us to find evidence of notability. James500 (talk) 21:08, 13 December 2011 (UTC) At this point, no one has asserted that "policy advocacy" isn't notable, so there is no valid rationale for deletion in the first place. James500 (talk) 15:59, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * My comments above in this debate were predicated on this article being located at Policy advocacy. Not that that isn't easily fixed. James500 (talk) 22:41, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I have now moved the page back to Policy advocacy. James500 (talk) 13:51, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete Unfocused article without specific sourcing. I think an article could be written on the subject, but this isn't  a useful beginning.  DGG ( talk ) 02:34, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment. This article has been moved to Policy advocacy and Science and expanded since 12 December. I am not sure what DGG means by "specific sourcing". The article now has a list of nine sources. James500 (talk) 19:58, 18 December 2011 (UTC) In fact the article was referenced to two papers to begin with. James500 (talk) 20:04, 18 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I am inclined to think that this article should go back to its original location, Policy advocacy. If the topic were felt to be too insubstantial to support a separate article, it could be merged into Policy and the page Policy advocacy redirected to that article . James500 (talk) 23:07, 18 December 2011 (UTC) This subject is already discussed in Advocacy Evaluation and a better merge and redirect would be to the article Advocacy. James500 (talk) 13:43, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, v/r - TP 16:41, 19 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep – A useful term to include in Wikipedia. Article could use expansion. Northamerica1000 (talk) 21:52, 25 December 2011 (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.