Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gentlemen's agreement

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, with thanks to User:Location's research and improvements to the article. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 22:50, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gentlemen's agreement

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

Completely unreferenced, even after existing as an article for 8 years. Essentially just WP:OI. Probably could be transwikied to wictionary. Oddly enough, the first version of this article was a reasonable little stub, specifically about Gentlemen's Agreement of 1907 which has turned into a perfectly good free-standing article on its own. But what we have here is pointless. A google search comes up with lots of uses of this term, but nothing which talks authoritatively about the topic.-- RoySmith (talk) 21:13, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Doing citations was probably more difficult in 2002 than it is now, although it appears that none of the subsequent contributors believed in such things as mentioning where they got their facts either. About a year ago, it got stripped of all of the unsourced stuff, but at the same time it was transformed into this essentially useless article that completely misses the point that a "gentlemen's agreement" refers to an injustice that is perpetuated by an unwritten rule (such as "we need to limit American pro sports to white athletes"). As far as content, this appears to have been the best version [1]. Whether it's a completely unsourced list of gentlemen's agreements throughout history, or the silly "gentlemen's agreements sure are wonderful" version that we have now, it's an embarrassment. I'm sure it's listed on Wiktionary. Mandsford 02:24, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTDICDEF. A disambiguation page would make sense here with a link to the wiktionary article and the wikipedia articles Gentleman's Agreement, Gentlemen's agreement of Andhra Pradesh (1956), Gentleman's Agreement (novel), and Gentlemen's Agreement of 1907. Gobonobo ^T ^C 04:44, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Thanks Location. This article looks great now. Gobonobo ^T ^C 07:53, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- Agreed, turning this into a dab page would make sense. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:37, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Turn into a disambiguation page per Roy Smith. Bearian (talk) 00:57, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This term has a very lengthy history albeit one that has yet to be cited accurately. This term can be documente despite a paucity of authoritative-looking Google results. White 720 (talk) 14:37, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You need to present evidence of this. This is AFD. Indeed, this is Wikipedia. Vague handwaving is not good enough. Cite sources. Uncle G (talk) 15:58, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I agree with White 720 that there is much more to say than a simple wiktionary entry. Lack of references should not be a decisive argument here; there are far more other articles that should be deleted first for non-suitability or non-notability. And even as it stands I think it is more informative than a wiktionary entry alone would be. Nageh (talk) 13:19, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- And what sources say this "much more" that you claim, without presenting any evidence, to exist? Sources! Sources! Sources! Uncle G (talk) 15:58, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And what exactly do you want now? You critisize me for voting "keep" and others for voting "delete". Simply claiming that an article should be deleted for lack of sources without bringing ANY effort of TRYING to verify (I'm not really referring to you here) is the REAL PROBLEM of Wikipedia in terms of article deletion. It is super easy to critisize distructively in this way rather than contributing constructively. What my phrase "much more" was referring to was the fact that the article's title phrase is covered by several major wikipedias, which in part clearly contain content beyond what is offered here. And by expressing my vote here I am not automatically obliged to write on the article myself, I would say. Nageh (talk) 16:10, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ha, and I also should have checked prior revisions as pointed out above. So is this what we want on Wikipedia, simply delete anything and everything that is found unreferenced rather than bother checking whether the statement could be verified in principle? If that is the case I should delete 90% of the articles or article content I am finding on Wikipedia on the subject I am expert on, even when correct. Good deal!

I must admit that considering the history of this article I don't know how to proceed best (without getting into it myself). Nageh (talk) 16:31, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 15:00, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, with no prejudice against re-creation if someone manages to produce an encyclopedic article on this topic. In its current form it is little more than a dictionary definition for a common colloquial phrase. Surely, 8 years is more than enough time to produce at least a moderately reasonable encyclopedia article, which has not happened here. In the meantime, making a disambig page for the term sounds like a good idea. Nsk92 (talk) 15:44, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It sometimes indeed does take many years to write an encyclopaedia article, not least because people consider writing as the task to be undertaken by "someone", usually someone else. North Asia (AfD discussion) took almost five years to progress beyond a two-sentence stub. There is no deadline, and years are sometimes the timescale. Uncle G (talk) 15:58, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There are sources documenting gentlemen's agreements in general, and not the specific books, novels, and treaties. White 720 mentions difficulties in finding them with Google. That means that you have to work harder, White 720, not that one can get away with handwaving. Put the effort in.
There are sources in EU competition law (ISBN 9789050954655 pp. 150, ISBN 9789041198228 pp. 24) that mention a 1970 European Court of Justice ruling that a gentleman's agreement qualifies as an agreement as far as EU competition law is concerned. ISBN 9780199264766 pp. 323 mentions a 1960 Swiss court ruling that gentlemen's agreements are not legally binding in Swiss law. One can probably get another sentence or two from the Justice Vaisey characterization of gentlemen's agreements on page 165 of ISBN 9781590315729 (and many other places). A fair amount can be obtained from ISBN 9789050950411 pp. 91 et seq.. One can even bring in Desmond Tutu on the subject, if one uses ISBN 9781859847107 pp. 35. ISBN 9780949553232 pp. 135 discusses the difficulty of considering gentlemen's agreements to be binding (and also quotes Vaisey).
Those with more access than I should check out the 1957 Northwestern University law review, which appears to have a lengthy discussion of what gentlemen's agremeents are not, as far as the law is concerned. No, Mandsford, a gentlemen's agreement does not necessarily embody an element of injustice.
I agree, Mandsford, that there's often a long-term problem with people who don't believe in citing sources. Unfortunately, participants in this very discussion exemplify it. It's not merely a 2002 problem. ☺ But there are sources that address the actual concept of gentlemen's agreements (also gentleman's agreements) as points of contract and competition law. There is scope for expansion of this article from its current stub status. Uncle G (talk) 15:58, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid that we are at a disadvantage to you. The comments directed toward "participants in this very discussion", particularly the insinuations against User:White720 (who has not done a thing to you), are unnecessary. Neither I, nor White, have the phrase "Yes, I am an administrator" on our talk pages. If White is somewhat reluctant to talk back to someone with a badge, I can only say that I am not. It may not be your intent to pick a fight, but it's certainly coming across that way. Mandsford 18:16, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The current version of the page is basically about a colloquial English phrase rather than about a legal concept. If someone with some knowledge of the subject can convert the current version to a semi-reasonable stub, with a few references, about the legal concept, I'd be fine with keeping it. But my impression is that such a potential stub would have little overlap with the current text of the page and would have to be written essentially from scratch. Nsk92 (talk) 16:09, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - There is a very famous, well sourced example of this in the context of player eligibility for British football nations. See for example here and here etc. Eliteimp (talk) 18:12, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The references that elaborate on gentlemen's agreements are clouded out by those that do not, but there is information out there to expand the article. I have included in the article a reference from the 1920s explaining the role of gentlemen's agreements in industry. Location (talk) 00:09, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As mentioned by others, this needs to be cited, not deleted. NYCRuss ☎ 00:19, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. —JonathanDP81 (Talk | contribs) 17:51, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Finding sources for this topic seems easy, e.g. The concept of treaty in international law. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:14, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. There appear to be two huge branches of discussion for this topic: one on international relations and another on steel/iron industry concerns in the late 1800s/early 1900s. A "gentlemen's agreement" was actually a specific type of business arrangement in the later. Tons of mentions in the US House: [2]. Location (talk) 23:45, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The concept is quite notable and it would be shocking for wikipedia not to have an article on it. Its not shocking that the article is in poor shape.--Milowent (talk) 05:30, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep : Changing my vote based on the great improvements done by User:Location, and asking that this be closed as a snowball. Location has done an excellent job not only on making this a well-sourced article, but in summarizing the different meanings of the phrase "gentlemen's agreement" depending on time and... location. Nice work. Mandsford 13:20, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As nominator, I have no objection. The current version is a perfectly reasonable article. I still agree with the person who said the picture was kind of lame, however :-) -- RoySmith (talk) 13:32, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with that. A true gentleman would not fail to wear a long-sleeved shirt when shaking hands upon an agreement, nor display his hairy arm in crass promotion of his masculinity. It is clearly a breach of etiquette. Mandsford 19:06, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. And what self-respecting gentleman wears a watch on his right wrist? (See also Pleased to Meet Me.) Location (talk) 20:40, 29 June 2010 (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.