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 per WP:SNOW (non-admin closure). Sceptre ^(talk) 20:19, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No-go area[edit]

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

To be filled out... DonIago (talk) 17:47, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article is over 8 yrs old and still lacks sufficient context to identify the subject of the article. WP:CFORK, WP:SYNTH, WP:RS also apply. I believe deletion is long past due. Atsme☯^Consult 19:16, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Question: How does WP:CFORK apply here? Which article is this a content fork of? AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:29, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redundancy - each of the three sections creates a CFork because it's information that belongs in Northern Ireland, Rhodesian Bush War or Rhodesia, and South Africa or South African Defence Force respectively. If you don't think CFork applies, choose another reason. There are several which you so wisely pointed out on the TP. Atsme☯^Consult 19:42, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is not a new phenomenon — see Alsatia, for example. The matter is quite notable and topical too. If there's a better title for the concept, let's hear it. Even then, this would just be a matter of merger and that's done by ordinary editing, not deletion. Andrew D. (talk) 19:49, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

comment - please provide the RS and further description in the lede if you believe the matter is quite notable. The article has been up for 8 years without sufficient context or sourcing to identify the subject in the way it may have been intended originally. The term "no-go zone" is now ubiquitously referred to as a non-Muslim area where local law enforcement does not intervene. Another editor just referred to it in relation to schools. I've provided multiple RS with academic and institutional research (including law enforcement) confirming non-Muslim areas exist as no-go zones. There have even been attempts to wikilink to the article using the context of the non-Muslim zone, therefore, if consensus determines the article should stay, the context will be further defined, and more sections added. First things first. Atsme☯^Consult 21:11, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep unless someone come up with better reasons. I see no CFORK, RS can always be argued, but is no reason for deletion unless no RS exists. Can you explain the SYNTH? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:56, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

comment

I can see no difference in meaning or usage between no-go area and no-go zone, so I think we should consider them together. I'm inclined to the view that no-go zone should become a redirect to no-go area, with about half its current content incorporated here and the other half pruned.
The obvious place to start is with the dictionary definition. For example Collins has two definitions for "no-go area" and half a dozen examples of usage. See it here. "no-go zone" doesn't appear.
Having decided what we're talking about, we could go on and give the most notable examples, as the article currently does. There are quite a few inward links, which ought to be satisfied rather then just removed.

SamuelTheGhost (talk) 20:03, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

comment - Stephan, AndyTheGrump described it at the TP, stating: Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and unless a single source can be found to draw the existing content together, it may have to be deleted as synthesis. Atsme☯^Consult 21:13, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's right, I said 'unless', and 'may'. Now will you stop misrepresenting the discussion at Talk:No-go area, and confine further discussion to your own rationale, rather than purporting to have started this AfD on my behalf. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:35, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't "misrepresented" anything. Quotes are not misrepresentations. Please stop making spurious claims. Atsme☯^Consult 00:33, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Established term. It happens even today, and is often mentioned. Quickly searching I could find for instance this, this and this, but I'm sure I've seen it before. I think what's going on is that someone is upset because this essentially military term has been in the news because of alleged no-go areas in France, Sweden or Britain. The fact is that there are local areas nominally under the sovereignity of governments that have no business actually going there. For instance, in Pakistan, there have been no-go areas in the FATA even before al-Qaida became famous; Pakistan law enforcement could not enter them for fear of being militarily attacked. Regarding Wikipedia-keeping, if there is unsourced information which is not in a BLP article, the correct method to rectify the situation is to add sources, not try to (ab)use the deletion process to try to get the whole article deleted. --vuo (talk) 20:54, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

comment - you just validated the context identity issue. Please read the lede to better understand the issue. Atsme☯^Consult 21:11, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There is room for improvement in many aspects but the article as stands does serve valuable information and it does have some sources. --Boy Seeks Girl Tonight (talk) 21:38, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - if anything, the article doesn't extend far enough. There are civilian no-go areas declared when civil unrest mean that fire and ambulance services cannot/well not attend certain areas and there are no-go areas declared in relation to major events or incidents. Its not limited to areas where authorities have "lost control" but applies to areas where authorities are temporarily incapable of maintaining control. There are clear links to martial law and curfews. The asnwer here is expansion, not deletion. St★lwart¹¹¹ 03:13, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment "No-go" is just a figurative term, the meaning is understood given context but no precise definition (unless it does in some nations legal code). It should be approached like other idiom articles, by giving a general sense of its meanings with examples, some origin (etymology) if it can be found, and how the term has been used in historical events. Related to No man's land, Red line (phrase) and other Category:Metaphors referring to places. -- GreenC 03:35, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

From Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary: "Each article in an encyclopedia is about a person, a people, a concept, a place, an event, a thing etc., whereas a dictionary entry is primarily about a word, an idiom, or a term and its meanings, usage and history." As I've made clear on the article talk page, we seem to be having problems defining 'no-go area', and it isn't clear to me whether there is actually an underlying definable concept (which would make it a legitimate subject for an article), or whether given the widely-differing contextual meanings attached to it, whether it is just a 'term', or even sometimes a rather tired cliché trotted out by the lazy. If there is an underlying concept, we ought to be able to find some sort of source for it, and build our article around that - otherwise, it may become a dumping-ground for 'anything and everything that someone has at some point or another called a no-go area', which isn't really encyclopaedic. I'm still open to opinions on this though, and hopefully this AfD (which I consider inappropriate while discussions were going on on the talk page) may help find the solution. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:13, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's technically an English idiom, and we have lots of articles on those so it is not an inherit problem, even if it is a tired old cliche (as many idioms are). Nor is a precise definition or concept needed as many idioms are understood in context. It's a question of notability I think. -- GreenC 04:15, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (drone) @ 18:38, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 23:16, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, multiple reliable sources cover the subject, including recently in relation to Islamist attacks on a left leaning satire publication and a Jewish market. There are also numerous books about the subject in regards to other contexts. Therefore, the subject clearly passes WP:GNG, and may I refer to WP:NOTCLEANUP.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 23:21, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 23:29, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - when will users learn that the AfD process is not the proper way to go if you want articles to be improved etc... This also has plenty of reliable sources so I do not see the argument for deletion.--BabbaQ (talk) 23:36, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

comment - it seems 8 years without citing sources or providing a specific context for the article would qualify a deletion request. There are plenty of arguments for keeping it, but not for any of the reasons that define what it is, so what we end up with is a hodge-podge for editors to write whatever they want. How very encyclopedic. Atsme☯^Consult 23:51, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it would help if you did not change the article drastically during this AfD process so that users could evaluate the article during this time. Making drastic edits can be seen as trying to influence the result. Cheers.--BabbaQ (talk) 00:24, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't changed the article. Not sure what you're referring to. Atsme☯^Consult 03:17, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Did delete. Is record: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=No-go_area&oldid=642965845 Anonymous because I can. 173.161.12.108 (talk) 02:01, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Number of reliable references, and the subject is already known to people. This term itself clarifies its rationale. Noteswork (talk) 23:10, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I suspect that this will be the new "buzz phrase" of 2015, even though its been around a few years. Its about to be on everyones lips, very soon.--JOJ ^Hutton 03:09, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. -- GreenC 03:22, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the term was initially a backwater curiosity, but it's now evolved into a mainstream talking point about Muslims and immigration issues, not unlike other idioms like red line (phrase) that occasionally impact current events. More then ever we need an article that helps deconstruct the term and shows its impact on society, more than a dictionary can do. -- GreenC 03:22, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The term was certainly not a 'backwater curiosity' in 1970s Belfast or Derry - it was a significant fact of peoples lives. Unlike the made-up bollocks currently being regurgitated by sections of the U.S. right wing. If anything needs 'deconstructing', it is how actual barricades manned by armed men have somehow become less significant than fictitious 'areas' located nowhere anyone actually cares to put a name to, invented to suit the Islamophobic rhetoric of pundits who reside on the other side of the Atlantic. Not that Wikipedia will do the 'deconstructing' of course - instead it will cobble together yet another contradictory pseudo-encyclopaedic 'article' consisting of anything and everything the POV-warriors can crowbar into it. Prior to this latest shit-storm, this was a crap article that nobody cared about. As a result of the shit-storm, it will instead become a crap article that everyone cares about. A combination of vague undefined subject matter and the self-evident glee with which the POV-warriors are piling in makes that a certainty. AndyTheGrump (talk) 08:35, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What I meant by 'deconstruct' was to put the 'Islamophobic rhetoric of pundits who reside on the other side of the Atlantic' into context as it now appears ("Anti-Muslim"). The article has almost no sources for 1970s Belfast or Derry, or its claim the term was coined in Rhodesia, that would be good to find more sources. It looks like someone piled on too many sources for the Fox News brouhaha as part of this AfD, most of those should be moved to the talk page. I'm going to reorder the sections from oldest to newest so the Fox stuff is at the bottom and Rhodesia (claimed origin) at the top. -- GreenC 14:18, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Not only is this an established term, but the deletion nomination justification fails completely. The article identifies the context. This is not a fork of another article. There is no violation of WP:SYNTH. Reliable sources are cited in the article. —Lowellian (reply) 03:28, 20 January 2015 (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.