Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Freedom deficit
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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 per the addition of sources by User:Wl219. — Black Falcon (Talk) 23:19, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Freedom deficit
Neologism coined in 2002. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Perhaps appropriate for transwiki, or brief mention in article such as Human Development Index since its origins are clearly sourced in the article. A cursory Google search suggests this term is not used outside of the field of political science (thus failing WP:N. Eliz81(talk)(contribs) 07:01, 29 July 2007 (UTC) Nomination withdrawn per citations listed by User:Wl219, notability established via coverage of the term in third party sources. Eliz81(talk)(contribs) 21:44, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh 01:00, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete not notable neologism. Oysterguitarist 03:42, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
- Keep UNDP and CFR are proper sources. "this term is not used outside of the field of political science" per nom is basically WP:IDONTKNOWIT and not an appropriate basis for deletion. Wl219 02:05, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
- Perhaps I should clarify: I was unwilling to rule out notability in political science because I am not in the field. However, notability, in polisci or in widespread general usage, has not been established through verifiable, third party sources. If you can cite sources indicating that this terminology passes WP:NEO, I'm willing to reconsider my nomination. Eliz81(talk)(contribs) 19:07, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
- I've found several sources (most recently December 2006[1]) that all generally define the term as meaning a "lack of democracy," applied mostly to the Middle East but also 1 source applying it to China[2]. Not all the sources cite back to the UNDP report (this does: [3] but these don't: [freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/966512/posts], [4], [5]) which suggests to me that politicians and pundits have latched on to it as a generic term and no longer a neologism. Wl219 01:57, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
- Perhaps I should clarify: I was unwilling to rule out notability in political science because I am not in the field. However, notability, in polisci or in widespread general usage, has not been established through verifiable, third party sources. If you can cite sources indicating that this terminology passes WP:NEO, I'm willing to reconsider my nomination. Eliz81(talk)(contribs) 19:07, 6 August 2007 (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.
