Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Conquest (military)

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The result was Nomination WITHDRAWN Original nominator has withdrawn the nomination Mike Cline (talk) 15:07, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Conquest (military)

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

PROD removed as "tag spamming." Article defines what "military conquest" is, giving a few random definitions of such conquests. Drmies (talk) 22:37, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Did I need to add a link to Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary? Drmies (talk) 22:38, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: It seems Drmies is deleting cited information diff from the article in an attempt to support his argument that the article should be deleted.WritersCramp (talk) 00:38, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Aww you tattle tale...but it's no biggie, since anyone who clicks on that diff will see immediately that the stuff that you and the Colonel keep inserting is about NON-military conquest. I'm actually helping the article by making it seem it wasn't written by people who misread a few phrases from the first page of an academic article that popped up in Google. You're welcome! Drmies (talk) 04:45, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Drmies continues to delete relevant cited information from article in an attempt to get it deleted. If it happens again, I will report it as vandalism diff WritersCramp (talk)
- Go right ahead. At best you will hear that this is a (valid) discussion about content. I wonder if you are cramped to the point where you can't distinguish military from non-military conquest. Drmies (talk) 16:14, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Drmies it is time to remove your deletion tag and apologize to Wikipedia for overly zealous behaviour. An article this long cannot possibly qualify as a dick-def. WritersCramp (talk) 17:46, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Mind your manners. None of this was there when you first produced the article, and I would suggest you have a look at Wikipedia:Your first article. Also useful: practicing in your sandbox before going live. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 18:00, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep We have over 3 million articles and 99% of them are of less than good quality. We keep them in mainspace because this is our editing policy - readers will find them there and hopefully improve them. The suggestion that the conquest article is only a dictionary definition is wrong. There is plenty of room for expansion. The deletion tag was posted when the article was only a few minutes old! WritersCramp (talk) 22:40, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- No, I believe the number is 98%, but either way, that is not to the point. When you wrote the article you included a link to the wiktionary article, and that is the way to go. I don't know how you would expand on it, and given WP:DICDEF, I don't see why we should wait for that. Drmies (talk) 22:49, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Why don't you buy the two books used as citations, then you will know -:) WritersCramp (talk) 01:15, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment—At present this adds little beyond what is listed on the conquest article. It could potentially discuss in more detail what constitutes a subjugation; does it mean the complete cessation of combat, including via guerrilla warfare? Is the unconditional surrender (military) of the existing government sufficient? When do the terms make it a conquest versus a peace settlement?—RJH (talk) 22:47, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: All that is required for an article is the ability for expansion, which you yourself state it has. There should be a tag "Keep and Expand" not "Delete". This is a stub article and will expand over time. WritersCramp (talk) 01:13, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article is a stub not a dictionary entry. This nominator needs to do more than cite the WP:DICDEF policy but must also explain how it is relevant, as the article contains no etymology or other lexical content. I have expanded the article further from a good source. This was easily done and such expansion is our reason for retaining stubs in mainspace, as explained by User:WritersCramp above. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:19, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, that source is great, but it doesn't say what you want it to say, unfortunately. (I have access to JSTOR--I read past the first page, and really, that first paragraph already makes clear it does not pertain.) Drmies (talk) 13:33, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- this topic is complicated by the fact that most sources that mention military conquest talk about specific instances of it, not the general concept. Nevertheless it is clearly an encyclopedic subject, and the article already has enough sourced material to make a decent start. Reyk _YO! 11:29, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
To any passing admin: nomination withdrawn. I'm getting editor's cramp. Drmies (talk) 18:00, 5 March 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.