Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Exigence (rhetoric)

: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 redirect to Rhetorical_situation#Lloyd_Bitzer. The content is all there in the page history if anybody wishes to perform a proper merge. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 22:01, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

=[[:Exigence (rhetoric)]]=

:{{la|Exigence (rhetoric)}} – (View AfDView log{{int:dot-separator}} [https://tools.wmflabs.org/jackbot/snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Exigence_(rhetoric) Stats])

:({{Find sources AFD|Exigence (rhetoric)}})

Term is explicitly stated to be a "term", falling foul of WP:NOTDICT. Wikipedia is not a dictionary and is not the place for definitions of all imaginable legal terms. Could move to Wiktionary. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:22, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:21, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Keep or merge to Rhetorical_situation#Lloyd_Bitzer, where the concept is mentioned. Per WP:ISATERMFOR, don't be fooled by suboptimal writing; this article is about the concept of exigence in the field of rhetoric, not just the term. While it starts out with a definition, as many good encyclopedia articles do, the next section is about the concept, not just the word. Exigence is one part of a rhetorical situation as described by Lloyd Bitzer, a notable rhetorician, along with audience and constraints. I don't know if there is enough sourcing out there for this particular concept to be notable. If not, then a natural merge target would be Rhetorical_situation#Lloyd_Bitzer. But I don't see a valid policy-based reason for deletion. --Mark viking (talk) 21:21, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
Merge and Redirect to Rhetorical situation. The term itself, as far as I know, is closely connected to Bitzer's "rhetorical situation". Closely connected enough to be covered in one article. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 23:28, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

{{resize|91%|Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.}}

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, st170e^talk 00:56, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Delete The word exigence just seems to be used here in its ordinary sense of a pressing need. There is no special aspect to this in the field of rhetoric and so the page is redundant. Andrew D. (talk) 01:47, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

: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.