Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Treatise


 * 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 No Consensus defaulting to Keep and needing improvement. Davewild (talk) 12:40, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Treatise

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

A dictionary definition, already transwikied to Wiktionary, followed by a fairly random list of things that meet some undefined notability definition. TexasAndroid (talk) 15:53, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete there's no doubt that treatises are notable, but this list is far from complete and I don't think it could ever be complete. The linked articles are notable in their own right, but this list is unnecessary. TRAVELLINGCARI My storyTell me yours 16:07, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Yep. My comment about "undefined notability definition" was referring to the criteria for appearing in this list, not for having their own articles on the project. - TexasAndroid (talk) 16:09, 25 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep and turn into a slightly amplified disambiguation page or list. Not sure whether the subject of treatises constitutes a specific literary genre the same way that essays are, but I am open to persuasion.  A number of the works that are not specifically called treatises here probably ought to be removed; claiming the label for them may well be original research.  I would also suggest that the current disambiguation page tractatus be merged / redirected here as well, since tractatus and treatise are essentially the same thing, one Latin, the other French.  - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 16:42, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. A quirk of titling is not a sufficiently discriminate criterion for a list article, and it's improper to disambiguate articles on the basis of this one word. Deor (talk) 17:01, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. List has unclear inclusion criteria and could never cover anywhere near all notable "formal, lengthy, systematic discourses". Dictionary definition is unnecessary in an encyclopedia. I can't see that we need a disambiguation page here either; nobody is going to search for "Treatise" to find out about an individual work which happens to have that word in the title. EALacey (talk) 19:15, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep, clarify inclusion criteria, adequately source, and prose-ify. I agree that the current article is too broad, but it can be narrowed and clarified to highlight only discourses that are specifically singled out by historians as significant "treatises".  Not all "formal, lengthy, systematic discourses" are treatises, but that doesn't mean that no "formal, lengthy, systematic discourses" are treatises.  Or to put it another way:  Not all formal agreements between two or more nations are necessarily treaties.  Does that mean that WP shouldn't have an article on treaties? Groupthink (talk) 23:59, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Its a type of scholarly work,and a distinctive type. The term is used in various senses, and the article attempts to explain their nature and distinguish by examples. The article should be expanded to do it more explicitly, there are sources available about scientific book and scientific publishing. DGG (talk) 00:31, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. This could be vastly expanded. The practice of the treatise is especially important in certain disciplines, such as constitutional law. It's not just a high-falutin' word for essay or argument. --Dhartung | Talk 05:33, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep per DGG and Dhartung. A treatise is a distinct type of publication; at minimum, this page serves as a disambiguation page. Black Falcon (Talk) 06:06, 2 March 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.