Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Enemy of the state

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. Davewild (talk) 09:35, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Enemy of the state

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

Unencylopedic -- Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Jrtayloriv (talk) 06:20, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, unencyclopedic. Neptune 123 (talk) 17:21, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It doesn't just define a term, it discusses it. Although I am skeptical about the effectiveness of "keep and clean up" results at AFD, this article has potential. It may not be sourced, contain little information and be badly written, but it's an important and well known topic.--Patton123 (talk) 20:57, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:49, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:49, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:50, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep: seems to more than a mere WP:DICDEF, if barely. It surely needs references and cleanup, but I don't think it needs to be thrown to the wolves for it. bahamut0013^words _deeds 13:15, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - needs references and a bit of a clean up as Bahamut states but not deletion.--BabbaQ (talk) 18:53, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - As with Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Second-class_citizen this is a plausible search term discussing an issue with potential for far more than a dictionary definition. It is (like many articles on wikipedia) in need of a lot of work to become a valuable resource, but that is no reason for deletion. Ajbpearce (talk) 23:21, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep easily expandable. The proper tag for these sort of articles in current form like this would read still just a definition, needs expansion into an article DGG ( talk ) 14:51, 14 January 2011 (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.