Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Enforcement (2nd nomination)

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. Consensus is to keep with Notecardforfree's rewritten version Sarahj2107 (talk) 08:46, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Enforcement

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

Incomprehensible gibberish since 2011. Fixing it would leave nothing more than a definition anyway. Dicklyon (talk) 04:40, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as per nom. Nothing worth saving here. Neiltonks (talk) 12:56, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I read this page 3 or 4 times, and couldn't decipher what was going on. There's nothing here to keep. RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:17, 2 November 2016 (UTC){[reply]
Keep - Notecardforfree You did a great job making this page into something I feel comfortable changing my opinion on. I wasn't sure the page was worth salvaging, however you did it. RickinBaltimore (talk) 16:08, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

He didn't salvage it; he replaced it with an article on a different topic. Dicklyon (talk) 17:31, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pardon my ignorance, but how is this a different topic? RickinBaltimore (talk) 17:39, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I just did a complete re-write of this article per WP:TNT. "Enforcement" is an important subject in legal jurisprudence, and it has been the subject of extensive discussion in legal scholarship. Dicklyon, Neiltonks, RickinBaltimore, can you please take a look at the new version of the article and let me know what you think? I hope you will consider changing your votes now that the article has been improved. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 16:00, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What you did was to replace the article with a new article on a different topic; I reverted that. Create that new-topic article in a diffferent place, so we can delete this one and move the disambig page there, and then your new article will be fine. Dicklyon (talk) 17:29, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No offense, but it seems a bit pedantic to revert back to an unreferenced stub for the sake of bureaucratic consistency. TimothyJosephWood 17:32, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Dicklyon, this kind of WP:BOLD/WP:TNT approach to article improvement happens all the time at AFD. Indeed, the whole point of these discussions is to salvage articles whenever possible; that's exactly what I did here. I'm not going to revert you (per WP:3RR and WP:BRD), but I ask that you please consider restoring the improved version of the article so that participants in this AFD discussion base their votes on the new and improved article, rather than the older, inferior article. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 17:37, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also, in case anyone is curious, here is a diff showing the new and improved version of the article. I think that the new and improved version is an appropriate article to keep at this title, while the old (current) version is not appropriate for an article at this title. Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 18:09, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The edit that created this article in 2011 said "Explaining enforcement outside legislation and administration". Yours is a different (legal) topic. For it to be appropriate at this title, you'd need to show that it's WP:PRIMARYTOPIC over all the other topics in Enforcement (disambiguation). There is an active proposial to move that disambig page to Enforcement, but this old gibberish was in the way. Your article is good, put putting it in the way here simply complicates straightening out the problem. Dicklyon (talk) 18:43, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dicklyon, I was not aware of the page move discussion until now, but I left a comment at the requested move discussion at Talk:Enforcement (disambiguation). I recommended that we keep the status quo with respect to the titles. The concept of "enforcement" (i.e. ensuring compliance with laws or social norms) is the subject of considerable scholarly discussion among legal scholars, sociologists, social psychologists, political scientists, and philosophers. This concept is clearly the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and an article discussing this concept should exist at this title. In my updated version of the article, I explained that "enforcement" also effectuates compliance with social norms and that enforcement can be effectuated by private citizens. It is more than simply a "legal" topic, though it is a frequent topic of discussion in legal scholarship. All things considered, I think the best course of action at this point is to let these discussions continue to run their course, but I certainly hope that we keep the broad concept article at its current title (with the new content). -- Notecardforfree (talk) 19:23, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep with Notecardforfree's edit. The original is gibberish, but it hints at a vague notion of "regulation". Notecard's edit expanded upon that and turned it into English. 157.235.66.80 (talk) 19:03, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:42, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete Why on earth would we keep this? It merely duplicates, badly, what we have at https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/enforcement for that. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:47, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

- Shawn in Montreal, see the above discussion about my updates to this article (see this diff) and please consider whether it is worth keeping that version. Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 19:49, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:48, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep with Notecardforfree's rewrite and per WP:HEY. Nice work! Their rewrite shows that enforcement is a notable topic per WP:GNG through the use of multiple reliable sources and the rewrite gets rid of the gibberish problem. Reverting a solidly referenced rewrite to an unreferenced stub just because it complicates a disambiguation exercise is...a case misplaced priorities. At WP, verifiable article content is king and any DAB work or title changes can be accomplished through discussion and consensus after the close. --Mark viking (talk) 19:56, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I will limit myself to saying that I do think Mark is right: WP:DISCUSSAFD allows for article improvement at Afd and WP:PRESERVE expressly encourages it. To frustrate and revert efforts to do so for disambiguation reasons appears to me to be contrary to core policy. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:25, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the improved version. Since there doesn't seem to be anything actively harmful in the article history, I see no need to delete the "bad" version before re-creating the "good" one. Cnilep (talk) 03:26, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the rewrite. Not sure if this topic is the primary topic for the term "enforcement", but that's a matter for WP:RM. Either way, this definitely seems like a notable topic worthy to be in an encyclopedia. Steel1943 (talk) 20:46, 10 November 2016 (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.