Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Radicalization

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. Cirt (talk) 00:13, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Radicalization[edit]

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

This article has been little more than dictionary entry for several years, the recently added text is almost all referenced from a single primary source, and the article is now a short essay. Wnjr (talk) 10:57, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - poor article; valid concept. This is not a dictionary definition since the page deals with the concept not the word. Looking around there are plenty of reputable sources from which the article can be developed.[1][2][3][4][5][6] etc. We don't delete bad articles, we improve them. Bridgeplayer (talk) 21:43, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep, then improve: As the originator of this quickly-hacked-together stub article replacement for a dicdef, I know it's a poor article, but it's a poor article on a valid, highly notable subject (see http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=radicalization for over 24,000 citations from Google Scholar using the term, many of which have radicalization as their main subject, and http://news.google.com/news?q=radicalization for evidence of coverage in around 1200 verifiable reliable news sources in the last few weeks alone), complete with two source citations to demonstrate notability. As such, it needs improvement, not deletion. -- The Anome (talk) 21:50, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep, and rescue, per Anome, assuming someone adds at least a few of the found citations. Bearian (talk) 23:03, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've added the cited sources as external links for now, as well as a rescue tag. See WP:BEFORE. Gosh! Bearian (talk) 23:12, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Click the buttons up top of the AFD. Google news search shows 9,660 results where newspapers have used that expression. Google book search shows 2,660 results. And Google scholar shows 24,200 results. Dream Focus 06:16, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Poor quality of an article is no reason for deletion; article subject is eminently encyclopedic. ¨¨ victor falk 06:46, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Snowball keep Article has been considerably improved since the nom, and per the above there are easilly sufficient sources to raise it to FA standard if so desired. FeydHuxtable (talk) 13:28, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and Close for all above and the article is now in the rescue process andyzweb (talk) 15:21, 1 February 2010 (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.