Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Public

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. Davewild (talk) 09:40, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Public

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

Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Jrtayloriv (talk) 06:47, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Though the article is just a definition now, there is a promising list of references provided that should allow it to be expanded into an encyclopedia article. Cullen328 (talk) 07:00, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Could you briefly describe what an encyclopedia article on the word "public" might look like, if not a dictionary entry? -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 07:16, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I'm not sure how this could be made into a proper encyclopedia article as opposed to a dictionary entry. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 09:06, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I am withdrawing my recommendation in recognition of the fact that the article has been significantly changed. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 16:57, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. -- Acather96 (talk) 09:48, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT#DICDEF Neptune 123 (talk) 17:22, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ As this stands, not an encyclopaedic entry, despite its long history. If you wish to see what 'an encyclopedia article on the word "public" might look like', try the French, Italian and German articles which expand on the subject rather more, but are rather scant in regard of references. Peridon (talk) 19:32, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~, this is clearly a dictionary-type article and the info thus doesn't belong here. An encyclopedia entry on the subject would required a full clean-sheet rewrite. So then deletion first doesn't harm... L.tak (talk) 21:26, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Uncle G has changed the entry in an encyclopedic one that certainly has merit: clear Keep. L.tak (talk) 20:47, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It would look like this, a valid stub article about a subject (a concept in communication science theory) denoted by its title with sources (some of which were already pointed to at the time of nomination) and clear scope for further expansion. Keep. Uncle G (talk) 00:38, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a totally different article - thanks to Uncle G. Peridon (talk) 18:38, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a good example of an important article about a general topic that has languished unloved for a while, but clearly should have been covered by wikipedia. Happily the article is already now much better and has clear scope for further expansion. Ajbpearce (talk) 21:32, 12 January 2011 (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.