| Revision as of 04:52, 18 November 2010 editSkyerise (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers141,569 edits →Security and Development: ce← Previous edit | Revision as of 16:43, 19 November 2010 edit undoLongevitydude (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users658 edits the accusations against this article dont make senseNext edit → | ||
| Line 28: | Line 28: | ||
| * This is not ] or ], this is not original research nor and essay, please see discussion of the topic by well recognized and reliable sources such as: EU on Security and Development http://www.consilium.europa.eu/showPage.aspx?id=1659&lang=en , DIFID on Security and Development http://sand.miis.edu/research/documents/SecandDevdocs/securityforall.pdf , International Peace Academy on Security and Development http://www.un.org/esa/peacebuilding/Library/Strengthening_SecDev_Nexus_IPA.pdf, CISDE on Security and Development http://www.cidse.org/Area_of_work/Global_governance/?id=309, Monterey Institute of International Studies Security and Development program http://sand.miis.edu/ ] 17:35, 17 November 2010 (UTC) | * This is not ] or ], this is not original research nor and essay, please see discussion of the topic by well recognized and reliable sources such as: EU on Security and Development http://www.consilium.europa.eu/showPage.aspx?id=1659&lang=en , DIFID on Security and Development http://sand.miis.edu/research/documents/SecandDevdocs/securityforall.pdf , International Peace Academy on Security and Development http://www.un.org/esa/peacebuilding/Library/Strengthening_SecDev_Nexus_IPA.pdf, CISDE on Security and Development http://www.cidse.org/Area_of_work/Global_governance/?id=309, Monterey Institute of International Studies Security and Development program http://sand.miis.edu/ ] 17:35, 17 November 2010 (UTC) | ||
| **Those all seem to be ]. Can you provide any secondary sources reporting on the topic? ] (]) 04:51, 18 November 2010 (UTC) | **Those all seem to be ]. Can you provide any secondary sources reporting on the topic? ] (]) 04:51, 18 November 2010 (UTC) | ||
| *'''Keep''' The accusations seem to include bad faith and make no sense, as some editors have pointed out earlier in this afd. ] (]) 16:43, 19 November 2010 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 16:43, 19 November 2010
Security and Development
- Security and Development (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log) • Afd statistics
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
WP:NEO, looks like WP:OR or WP:ESSAY — Timneu22 · talk 20:42, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
- Do not Delete, security and development is an emerging field of study (as is Human Security, Human Rights, etc), the article contains numerous references to well recognized research and websites that discuss the issue, this is an encyclopedia quality article. User: hsutton521 17:35, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
- Delete, unreferenced essay, not an encyclopedia article. Yworo (talk) 20:54, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 21:06, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 21:06, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:ESSAY. THF (talk) 21:25, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
- Delete. This is basically an opinion piece and should be deleted per WP:OR. Peacock (talk) 21:47, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
- This article has been updated to include references; what are the next steps in making sure it doesnt get deleted? -g323, not so wikipedia savvy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by G323 (talk • contribs) 21:50, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
- Hello, you need to read WP:OR. Misplaced Pages does not accept "original research" which includes the synthesis of other material to create a new theory. So, references alone will not solve the problem. QU 21:54, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
- Hi - thank you for your response. This is not original research. There is a wide body of research on Security and development. I am very confused by this whole process. How can I prove that this is not original research if not by providing references? The whole code/citation system is very conplex. Thank you for your time —Preceding unsigned comment added by G323 (talk • contribs) 21:58, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
- Hello, you need to read WP:OR. Misplaced Pages does not accept "original research" which includes the synthesis of other material to create a new theory. So, references alone will not solve the problem. QU 21:54, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
- Is there anything else that should be done at this point to remove the deletion warning? I believe it has been establish that:
- This is not an essay
- This is not a "term"
- This is not an opinion piece
- This is not original research
- It is indeed an encyclopedia article.
- Can we please remove the deletion tab? I appreciate and look forward to your feedback - g323 —Preceding unsigned comment added by G323 (talk • contribs) 00:17, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
- No. Wait for the AfD to end. — Timneu22 · talk 00:43, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
- This is not WP:OR or WP:ESSAY, this is not original research nor and essay, please see discussion of the topic by well recognized and reliable sources such as: EU on Security and Development http://www.consilium.europa.eu/showPage.aspx?id=1659&lang=en , DIFID on Security and Development http://sand.miis.edu/research/documents/SecandDevdocs/securityforall.pdf , International Peace Academy on Security and Development http://www.un.org/esa/peacebuilding/Library/Strengthening_SecDev_Nexus_IPA.pdf, CISDE on Security and Development http://www.cidse.org/Area_of_work/Global_governance/?id=309, Monterey Institute of International Studies Security and Development program http://sand.miis.edu/ User: hsutton521 17:35, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
- Those all seem to be primary sources. Can you provide any secondary sources reporting on the topic? Yworo (talk) 04:51, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
- Keep The accusations seem to include bad faith and make no sense, as some editors have pointed out earlier in this afd. Longevitydude (talk) 16:43, 19 November 2010 (UTC)