- 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 no consensus. Courcelles 18:04, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Roadworthiness (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Dennis Bratland (talk) 15:57, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep The article has the potential to go beyond a dictionary definition: while a dictionary would simply say that roadworthiness means meeting legal requirements to go on public roads, an encyclopedia can discuss the technical requirements and the various legal standards for roadworthiness. However, if there's a suitable redirect, that would be fine. --Colapeninsula (talk) 16:55, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Giving advice on the hundreds of state and national legal requirements and regulations violates WP:NOTHOW: "While Wikipedia has descriptions of people, places and things, an article should not read like a "how-to" style owners manual, advice column (legal, medical or otherwise)". Possibly a redirect to Automobile safety or Vehicle inspection could work, though roadworthieness includes factors other than safety, and not all jurisdictions have formal vehicle inspections to determine roadworthiness. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 17:04, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- It's possible to prevent information on legislation without violating WP:HOWTO, and many articles on legal topics do this, e.g. Defamation#Defamation laws by jurisdiction, Obscenity, Adultery#Law. An encyclopedia should also provide the history of laws, which is certainly outside the scope of a HOWTO. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:08, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:57, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - not a dictionary. There seems to be nothing to say about the concept other than its definition.--Robert EA Harvey (talk) 13:04, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 04:58, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:NOTDICTIONARY Davey2010 Talk 06:35, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep WP:DICDEF explains that "One perennial source of confusion is that a stub encyclopedia article looks very much like a stub dictionary entry, and stubs are often poorly written. Another perennial source of confusion is that some paper dictionaries, such as "pocket" dictionaries, lead editors to the mistaken belief that dictionary entries are short, and that short article and dictionary entry are therefore equivalent." There's plenty to say about the topic as evidenced by works such as The Effect of Vehicle Roadworthiness on Crash Incidence and Severity or Roadworthiness: Industry Best Practice. Such works establish the notability of the topic and it's then a matter of ordinary editing, not deletion.Warden (talk) 08:38, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep followed by mandatory improvements, and perhaps another AfD nomination if nobody follows up with it. There are other articles on various worthinesses, so I don't think this article should be deleted on dictionary grounds unless we delete all the others as well...which of course we can't do. MezzoMezzo (talk) 10:40, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: Via some basic Google searches, I found multiple sources which collectively suggest that the article has enough WP:POTENTIAL to be expanded well beyond a dictionary definition (e.g. Google Scholar and Google Books). I agree that the article needs a fair bit of work by editor(s) with the time and inclination to sift through the published legal statutes and technical papers covering multiple national jurisdictions to put together a proper encyclopedic article. Nonetheless, it can be done and hence deletion is not a necessary remedy (WP:SURMOUNTABLE). Also, I agree with a previous comment that it is possible for an article to provide a descriptive overview of what the law states across multiple jurisdictions without violating WP:HOWTO: i.e. an encyclopedic article simply provides a summary of what the law states, while a how-to guide gives advice on specific applications of the law. --Mike Agricola (talk) 17:01, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The only problem is not that there is "nothing to say about the concept other than its definition", as claimed above, but that there is so much to say that, if this is expanded beyond a stub, it will be difficult to select what to include and what to leave out. That is an editing issue, not an existential issue. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:24, 11 April 2013 (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.