Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Constitutional hardball
- 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. ]
Constitutional hardball
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Constitutional hardball (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I Prod'ed this as
WP:NOTDICT; the tag was removed with the irrelevant rationale; 'meets notabity guidelines'. It is still a dictionary definition, and I believe that the underlying principle is way older than 2004, as claimed. TheLongTone (talk) 16:09, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
]
- Keep - significant, in-depth coverage in reliable sources, including academic source; concept has gotten attention in political science and law scholarship. Neutralitytalk 16:36, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
- Read the nomination rationale. This is a definition of a term.TheLongTone (talk) 14:22, 14 January 2019 (UTC)≤
- No, it's an explanation of a concept. This is not a dictionary definition any more than our articles on (to take a few random examples) political mobilization, rule of law, etc. are dictionary definitions. Neutralitytalk 16:18, 14 January 2019 (UTC)]
- No, it's an explanation of a concept. This is not a dictionary definition any more than our articles on (to take a few random examples)
- Comment - much like the page Constitutional Crisis#Tactics, for example), or should it feed the google knowledge engine an infobox and blurb? I don't know. Others will perhaps have stronger opinions. SashiRolls t · c 16:56, 13 January 2019 (UTC)]
- Rename the article is named after a buzzword (which is probably a non-notable neologism). The general topic regarding political norms in the United States is surely notable. I don't see a good merge target, so perhaps this should be renamed. π, ν) 17:42, 14 January 2019 (UTC)]
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:46, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:46, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
- Keep. My gut said "delete," but after looking around a bit, this seems to be a thing:
- Tushnet, Mark V. (2004). "Constitutional Hardball". The John Marshall Law Review. ISSN 0270-854X.
- Balkin, Jack (2008). "Constitutional Hardball and Constitutional Crises". Faculty Scholarship Series.
- Bernstein, David E. (2018). "Constitutional Hardball Yes, Asymmetric Not so Much". Social Science Research Network.
{{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires|journal=(help) - Fishkin, Joseph; Pozen, David E. (2018). "Asymmetric Constitutional Hardball". Columbia Law Review. 118 (3).
- Tushnet, Mark V. (2004). "Constitutional Hardball". The John Marshall Law Review.
- The article goes well past ]
- Keep It seems like ]
- Keep No compliance with be wise also.
- If you just click on the Article Search Google Books link and Scholar, you will find a whole library full of books and scholarly articles dealing with this subject. And this is also regularly part of the discourse in common news sources. These are at the top of this WP:AFDnomination, and it is easy to click on.
- Exceeds WP:GNG. Already way more than a dictionary definition.
- It should inform all of us whether this exercise should continue.
- No doubt the article and sourcing can be improved. But that is part of the normal editing process, and no reason to delete. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 22:25, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 22:49, 18 January 2019 (UTC)]
- Keep If the NOM had done a WP:RS quote those law discussions. Simply put, its a thing which the article covers, supported by sources. I'll go further. This is an example of a frivolous AfD. I think the NOM should be penalized for wasting our time. Trackinfo (talk) 23:22, 18 January 2019 (UTC)]
- I know there is no process to penalize frivolous nominators who ignore the ]
- How about for those who ignore ]
- While I assume TJRC meant that comment as a sarcastic personal attack against me, there actually is a point to be made. Editors who are adjudicated as having violated WP:BEFORE and I do think there should be a point system to adjudicate abuse so those editors should lose their *fD nominating privileges. Trackinfo (talk) 06:55, 19 January 2019 (UTC)]
- Of course, we all WP:Civiland comment on the edits and article, not on each other.
- The article should not be deleted. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:25, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
- Especially not with so many viable merge targets. Given WP:NOTPAPER and all, maybe a page like WP:RULEZ#hardballerZ would be a good !place to fortify and re-constitute wiki-praxis. What do you think, 13? ^^ SashiRolls t · c 19:05, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
- Of course, we all
- While I assume TJRC meant that comment as a sarcastic personal attack against me, there actually is a point to be made. Editors who are adjudicated as having violated
- How about for those who ignore ]
- I know there is no process to penalize frivolous nominators who ignore the ]
- Merge There's nothing new about this – see What America can learn from the fall of the Roman republic, for example. We don't need a recentistbaseball metaphor for this when there are plenty of other pages already, including:
- Andrew D. (talk) 23:50, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
- It's a big encyclopaedia. Almost 5.8 million articles. WP:Not paper. As your list suggests, there is some overlap, but they are not synonymous. No reason to merge, IMO. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 18:46, 19 January 2019 (UTC)]
- It's a big encyclopaedia. Almost 5.8 million articles.
- 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.