Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Constitutional autochthony

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The result was Speedy Keep Non-admin closure as all delete opinions, including the nominator, have been withdrawn. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 04:20, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Constitutional autochthony

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Okay, this was WP:PROD'ed for being unsourced since 2007. I ran a google search, and found two sources that I believe that are reliable that use the term, one in the title of a journal article, the other that defines it.

Why are we here? I strongly suspect this doesn't pass muster under WP:GNG. However, ultimately, I'm just not certain. (And, strictly speaking, the exact reason this was PROD'ed no longer applies.) Hence, nothing is harmed by an Afd and a discussion. Consider this a neutral nomination. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 04:00, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Leaning delete~~ the example given is original research unless it can be sourced that the term has been used to describe the example. What's left is a dictionary definition and I'm not sure that the coverage is significant enough to pass WP:N or WP:NEO. Them From Space 04:10, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Switched to keep per the excellent rescue job. I think we can close this early. Them From Space 21:57, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wait a month. If the citation can be produced, it should stand. WP:Wikipedia is not on paper. If not, it can be deleted. I will list it on the Irish Wikipedians task group to see if anyone can provide the citation. --Red King (talk) 13:24, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why wait? It has been marked as unsourced for 2 years so there has been plenty of time to search for references. If the spur of potential deletion isn't enough to drag out some source material within a week then I don't think another 3 weeks will make too much difference.

The article itself doesn't amount to much anyway and may benefit from a complete rewrite if sources are uncovered after deletion. Road Wizard (talk) 14:07, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ unless the article can be expanded beyond the single sentence definition and reliable sources can be found. Road Wizard (talk) 14:07, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vote withdrawn. The article is now a good quality stub, verging on start-class. Well done. Road Wizard (talk) 22:39, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:43, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think the article is inaccurate in its definition. 'Constitutional autochthony' means building the constitution of a country from within, indigenously, and it is used in sources to refer to the creation of constitutions in former British colonies. See a book search:[1] I think it was coined in print by Kenneth Wheare in 1960.[2] We might want to merge something about this into Constitution#Principles of constitutional design or another article. A related phrase is 'legal nationalism'.[3] Most of the sources are behind pay walls. Fences&Windows 23:33, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I've started sourcing this article- Greek origin of definition etc. It was an important concept in the writing of British Commonwealth constitutions.There are reputable constitunional law sources for it.Cathar11 (talk) 02:03, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted your edit to the article as you lifted the text almost word for word from the source material. To avoid violations of copyright you need to put things in your own words. Short quotes are acceptable, but you need to make it clear they are quotes and who you are quoting from. Road Wizard (talk) 02:08, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorted. I'll have a look over the next few days for references.I'm not sure if Professor Wheare is the originator of the phrase.Cathar11 (talk) 04:07, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As the nominator, consider me now a solid Keep. Great work, Cathar11! Bradjamesbrown (talk) 00:23, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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.