Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Workmanship

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. SarahStierch (talk) 17:27, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Workmanship

[edit]
Workmanship (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)

Just a dictionary definition. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:24, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. 069952497aComments and complaintsStuff I've done 00:30, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep The nomination displays such poor workmanship that it should be speedily closed as frivolous. It makes the vaguest of waves towards policy without providing any evidence or cogent argument. The current draft doesn't actually look anything like a dictionary entry as there is no lexical content: no etymology, no grammar, no spelling, no quotations or examples of use. We can therefore only suppose that the basis of the nomination is that the current draft is short. But our WP:DICDEF policy explicitly says that shortness is not a valid test for this: "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. ... Note that dictionary entries and encyclopedia articles do not differ simply on grounds of length."
It seems obvious that no attempt has been made to follow WP:BEFORE as it takes no time to find good sources for this topic which demonstrate its notability and provide a basis for further work. I shall now list some to hammer home the point:
  1. Art and Workmanship
  2. Defective Workmanship
  3. Modern man and his instinct of workmanship.
  4. On Workmanship: A Lecture
  5. Removing barriers to pride in workmanship
  6. Rural crafts of England: a study of skilled workmanship
  7. The Instinct of Workmanship and the State of the Industrial Arts
  8. The instinct of workmanship and the will to work
  9. The Nature and Art of Workmanship
  10. Shakespeare's Workmanship
  11. Workmanship as Evidence
  12. Workmanship Standards Manual
  13. Workmanship: The hand and body as perceptual tools
Warden (talk) 09:15, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps list how workmanship was handled over time, guilds and whatnot. Plenty of books about this out there surely. The article has potential to become something if anyone wants to work with it. Dream Focus 10:40, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep: We're all familiar with this term, NOTEable cites are available by the millions, and it's a constant topic of discussion today as it was in the past - one often hears people discussing the workmanship of Apple's products, for instance. The argument for D to date has been argument from ignorance, "I can't see how this could ever…" And merge to handicraft? Are you sure? Maury Markowitz (talk) 12:23, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Massive results in news and book search, showing just how important workmanship is. The article has plenty of room for expansion. Dream Focus 17:48, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as very clearly nothing more than a dictionary definition. I'd be interested to see a keep voter supply any sense for how an encyclopedic article about the concept of "things having a certain level of quality" could possibly be written, rather than simply dumping a bunch of book titles with the word "workmanship" in them as if that's an argument in favor of anything. The word is a descriptive term to describe the quality/level of craft involved in making any number of things (as the beginning of this definitional article makes rightly clear), not an encyclopedic concept. As a secondary option I'd support the above redirect proposal (although I note that "workmanship" is definitely not limited to "handicrafts" -- it applies to a number of the intangible arts as well). ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 19:57, 3 June 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 15:56, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Entire books have been written that focus upon this concept and topic. Clearly much more than a simple dictionary definition.
 – Northamerica1000(talk) 22:15, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per sources in article and found above; concept is massively notable. --Cyclopiatalk 17:48, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, as should be obvious to anyone with the remotest concept of what an encyclopedia is. I'm beginning to despair of Wikipedia's "anyone can edit" philosophy when it means that the so blatantly ignorant can call for deletion of an article on such an obviously notable concept, which is a completely different topic from handicraft. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:58, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Not deletable under WP:DICTDEF. It is already more than a definition and it is only a stub. ~KvnG 04:39, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Key idea and concept; needs expansion is all. No need to delete, this is not even close to a dictionary definition; these constant "definition" AFD's are becoming problematic. Much of Wikipedia's coverage of core topics and ideas are underdeveloped; you fix them, not delete them. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 11:54, 12 June 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.