Talk:Polemic

message: KSci (talk) 21:28, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Administrator assistance had been requested to restore the prematurely closed AfD discussion. 

message: ::: @Chiswick Chap and @Safiel, I think we must base any rationales for noteworthiness one the WP Rules and Guidelines. The word "potential" does not, for example, qualify as a noteworthiness criteria, the word is not found in WP:GNG. Also, the number of sources mentioning a subject is specifically excluded as a criteria. A vast number of sources can be found on the topic of bathroom wallpaper, but I think we will agree that bathroom wallpaper is not a noteworthy WP topic. That fact that authors have characterized the positions of others as polemic does not establish polemic as a noteworthy topic in its own right. To establish polemic as warranting an article we need second and third party sources stating that plemic is a subject of note in its own right. I do not believe it is not enough to find sources that use the term to characterize the positions of others, particularly if it is used as a pejorative word to stigmatize views whom one disagrees.  WP:GNG states:
:::- "'Significant coverage' addresses the topic directly and in detail." - We need sources specifically addressing the subject matter of 'polemic', which is a very different test from finding examples where the word is an adjective. 
:::- "Reliable" means sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability, per the reliable source guideline." - We need reliable sources describing a topic 'polemic' as an independent topic, and again this is more than finding people using the term as an adjective. 
:::- "Sources should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability." - The sources *should be independent*, that is not tied to an issue or position, showing that polemic is more than just a common pejorative adjective.
::: I believe we need more than just the use of the use of the adjective in published works to justify a stand-alone article — otherwise we are in violation of the rule stating that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. A collection of people writing that one thing or another is polemic doesn't do this. The term to a great extent is subjective, so a history is not defined by examples alone. We need sources describing the subject of the article 'polemic' as a topic of note in its own right. 
::: Additionally, based on WP:MERGREASON reason #3:  Text: If a page is very short and is unlikely to be expanded within a reasonable amount of time, it often makes sense to merge it with a page on a broader topic. The years this article failed to develop and sustained very poor quality provide the best available indicator of its likelihood of being expanded into a full article in a reasonable period of time in the future. This lack of interest is also a valid measure of the topic's notability.  
:::If the topic grows sufficiently to warrant an independent article, a separate article on 'polemic' can then be reasonably reinstated. 
:::KSci (talk) 21:37, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  Afd discussions can be closed early, like all deletion discussions on Wikipedia. In this case, I think the early close was a bit rash. Nevertheless, realistically speaking, the likelihood of the end-result being something else than a "keep" is small, IMHO. Debresser (talk) 21:52, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  The following was written but could not be saved because the AfD discussion was prematurely closed without allowing sufficient time for all input (at least a week). 

message: I have reopened the AfD discussion in light of the objection. Be advised that AfD is NOT a discussion forum for pursuing a merge and if support for deletion does not appear, most likely another editor will again procedurally close the discussion. Safiel (talk) 22:04, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: AfD reopened

message: I thought polemic had to be controversial. Unorthodox. To me Animal Farm is a satire, and orthodoxy, not a polemic, or controversial, and reflects the prevailing orthodoxy with regard to the Soviet Union and totalitarianism, though I concede opinion of the Soviet Union, and by extension communism, was then at a post-war zenith. But opinion very rapidly reverted to the pre-war antagonism; the orthodoxy reflected in Orwell's work. More categorical examples of polemic abound, surely.
Aside: Poor Eric Blair; to have your work so consistently mis-understood! Reminds me of the often expressed notion 1984 is about totalitarianism. Well, yes, in a sense. Exclusively. Ah, no. It is equally relevant to the understanding of all forms of government, especially the evolution of forms of government; it is about the pervasive tendency toward authoritarianism, evident throughout human history [ref. Roman Empire], a tendency no less evident today in 'democracies', rather than being just a denunciation of modern totalitarianism as such.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.151.210.84 (talk) 12:28, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is 'Animal Farm' a Polemic?