Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Turf war

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 delete. I have to admit, I have not understood Bearian's keep argument, perhaps he can explain it on my talk page. I cannot see any example in WP:OUTCOMES that fits in the same category as turf war, nor do any of the three examples given support keeping generic terms as far as I can see (I can't even find a deletion discussion for magnesium chromate at all). I see no point in userfying an article on a subject that the community has decided that it does not want in principal. Of course, discovery of sources discussing turf war as a concept would change all this. SpinningSpark 19:19, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Turf war

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

A combination of dictionary definition and unsourced original research. The meaning of the term is so generic (it can refer to any sort of struggle, usually between criminal groups and the like) that I am finding it difficult to imagine that an encyclopedia article can be written about this. Sandstein 22:34, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Concur with nom. Vague concept, searching mostly shows dictionary type definitions. Somehow this article has been around since 2003 and keeps growing and still doesn't have a single valid reference. MB 04:35, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: once again I find the confusion between "unsourced" and "original research" being tossed around. Please do not confuse the two. Now to the topic: one can find tens of thousands of references to this term in Google Books from a wide variety of topics, so there's plenty of refs if one wants. The only reason I mark this as comment and not keep is that there is a wiktionary entry, and it seems perfectly fine. Let us not forget that the wiktionary didn't exist in 2003. Maury Markowitz (talk) 12:05, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Don't confuse "references" with "usage". There are certainly many books that use the term when writing about a struggle or dispute, but I didn't see any that were talking about the general concept. There may be some, and you have found anything that could serve as a reference to this article please share them. MB 21:09, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:BEFORE, as noted by Maury Markowitz. This is not so bad as to require WP:TNT. Based on WP:OUTCOMES, we have kept such diverse topics as Chaos, Sisu, and Magnesium chromate. Bearian (talk) 20:48, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Before" is not an argument for keeping if there are not in fact any useful sources. I've searched and the meanings are too disparate; one can write articles about specific turf wars, but I don't see a source describing the concept itself. Per WP:BURDEN it is you who would need to find sources to keep this. Sandstein 21:11, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I would argue that lots of hits for the term in google books do not necessarily equate to potential for an encyclopaedic article. The term is a common colloquialism, but I think we'd all agree that a bare definition of it is better left to Wiktionary. So what would a good version of this article look like? If we kept it around as a disambig page (like Bearian's example of Chaos, what would it link to? Unless somebody has a source showing that "turf war" is a term of art in, let's say sociology (where there was more to the term than is implied by its colloquial use), then I don't think that there's an encyclopaedia article here. A Train^talk 21:17, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If a sysop would userfy it for me, I'll work on it later, after the silly season. Bearian (talk) 20:52, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:31, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The fact that this colloquialism applies equally well to mafias, warlords, and drug cartels, as it does to academic departments, washing machine retailers, and desperate housewives shows that it's a generic term for any kind of real or metaphorical conflict over physical or metaphorical space. Generic terms belong in a dictionary. Specific types of turf wars, like a literal battle to control territory between gangs, or a metaphorical battle between officemates, belong as sub-sections of Gang or Organizational conflict, or (if the sections grow very large; I said if! per summary style) as disambiguated articles about those specific kinds of turf wars, e.g. Turf war (drug trade) or Turf war (workplace). Better titles than these are possible for these hypothetical articles. Emphasis on hypothetical. For now we have a dictionary definition. Delete. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 16:25, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTDIC. The article's text shows that this is a term that is widely applied to any territorial struggle. — Rwxrwxrwx (talk) 19:23, 20 October 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.