Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Busy work

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. Clearly there are reliable sources here, but whether this has the potential to grow beyond a dictionary definition is not something about which a consensus has been reached. Mark Arsten (talk) 13:50, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Busy work

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

Dictionary definition. The page already exists in Wiktionary, therefore no need to transwiki. Seems then that the best solution would be to just dispense with this one and possibly create a soft redirect to the Wiktionary page. SchuminWeb (Talk) 01:27, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 07:38, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 07:38, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Northamerica1000^(talk) 07:38, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is not a dictionary definition as the title is not a word and there is no etymology, grammar or other linguistic analysis. Warden (talk) 09:27, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not having those things doesn't make it not a dicdef p b p 18:32, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:DICDEF which explains the differences in detail. Among the attributes of a dictionary entry, it lists "its part of speech, its pluralizations, its usage, its etymology, its translations into other languages, and so forth". We have none of that here. What's more, neither you nor the nominator have provided any evidence or reasoning to support your contrary contention - just a WP:VAGUEWAVE. If you want to delete this notable topic then the onus is on you to support and defend your claim. Warden (talk) 20:24, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I explained this to you once, but as you still don't get it, here it is again. if an article has any of the things that characterize a dictionary definition (it need not be all, as you allege), and little else, it may be deleted under NOT. Since NOT is a policy and notability is a guideline, it doesn't matter if it passes GNG p b p 21:07, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You and the nominator haven't provided one single reason why this is a dictionary matter rather than an encyclopedic matter. Just noisy assertions. Whereas I have provided a citation to an encyclopedia which contains an entry specifically about this topic. Q.E.D. Warden (talk) 23:18, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a term that passes WP:GNG:

Paul Monroe (1910), "Busy work", A Cyclopedia of Education, p. 475
Randall M. Miller (2009), The Greenwood Encyclopedia of Daily Life in America: The War of Independence and antebellum expansion and reform, 1763-1861, p. 356, ISBN 9780313337031
USATODAY.com - Be sure 'busy work' isn't keeping you from growing your business
Slack: Getting Past Burnout, Busywork, and the Myth of Total Efficiency - Tom DeMarco - Google Books
Do More Great Work: Stop the Busywork, and Start the Work That Matters - Michael Bungay Stanier - Google Books

Additional sources from this customized search criteria as "busywork":

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

—Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:04, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

NA1K, this is a NOT deletion, not a notablity deletion, so the number of sources is irrelevant p b p 18:32, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Dicdef. So what if it's a compound word with no etymology? There are a great many of those at Wiktionary. And NOT trumps NOTE, so the number of sources that mention "busy work" doesn't matter p b p 18:32, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Two more book sources regarding busywork in the context of education:

—Northamerica1000^(talk) 19:25, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop cluttering this AfD with sources until you address the claim by the nominator and myself that this article fails a part of WP:NOT p b p 19:32, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There's no case to answer on that, as explained above. Warden (talk) 20:24, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there is, as explained above. p b p 21:07, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, there's still no case to answer. Warden (talk) 23:18, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

— The two book sources I cited above also serve to demonstrate some of the historical precedence for this term. Northamerica1000^(talk) 10:46, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Another article about busywork in the context of business:

Why Busy Work Doesn't Work - Forbes

—Northamerica1000^(talk) 21:50, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as dicdef. Despite the arguments of some above, and the numerous refs, an article does not have to have all of the listed items under dicdef to be one. An argument to the contrary would be the same as arguing that a athlete's bio has to meet all of the requirements in WP:ATHLETE in order to be notable, when it actually takes only one of the list. GregJackP Boomer! 02:35, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - While I don't believe this is the case (Dicdef), if it were, for example, how would you recommend incorporating elements of this book into the Wiktionary entry about this topic: (1901) Plans for busy work - Boston Primary Teachers' Association - Google Books? The problem is that Wiktionary would exclude this type of information, whereas the encyclopedia would include it. Northamerica1000^(talk) 05:43, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
User:GregJackP, like the other naysayers, still hasn't provided any reason or evidence why this should be considered a dictionary matter. WP:DICDEF explains that "One perennial source of confusion is that a stub encyclopedia article looks very much like a stub dictionary entry...". Given that such confusion is common, clear evidence is required to distinguish the two cases. A test is suggested, "One test is that an encyclopedia article's name can usually easily take many different equivalent forms, whereas a dictionary as a linguistic work is about the words in the title, and cannot usually be easily translated.". In this case, we could easily have the same content under the title make-work, rather than busy work. The concept which we are describing here is not a particular lexeme but the common requirement to find work to keep people occupied, because the devil finds work for idle hands. Warden (talk) 08:28, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per comments above, and the development that Warden and Northamerica1000 have done. -- Quiddity (talk) 08:33, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Context: For an article about a topic (whatever it may be, including a word/term/phrase), all that is required are sufficient Reliable Sources (that are not just dictionary entries) so that it can eventually[ism] become a Featured Article. That's it! Hence, we have - a small amount, and not all notable/deserving, but dozens-hundreds are, - articles on words.

In this particular case, it's not even about a word/term (especially after the post-nomination editing/sourcing work)! It's about an activity, and the history and ramifications of that activity. -- Quiddity (talk) 08:33, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your kind words but I fear that you, like the nay-sayers, suppose that the issue here is length - that we require topics to be capable of expansion to the great size of the typical FA. Personally, I find such articles to be bloated and I rarely read them through. There is no policy requirement to write at such length that I am aware of, and other encyclopedias commonly contain numerous brief entries. For an entry to explain a topic succinctly seems good - enough is as good as a feast. Warden (talk) 08:53, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No! Another common misconception! ;) I asked (or searched), and these are: The 2 Smallest existing FAs: Tropical Depression Ten (2005), and Miss Meyers. FA doesn't require length, just comprehensive coverage. -- Quiddity (talk) 19:12, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Its a real thing, references found, there coverage for it. The article should be expanded of course, but nothing gained by deleting it. Dream Focus 16:29, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep More than a basic definition as is the Wiktionary entry. Has room for expansion - the business section needs filling (unfortunately my personal experiences of this are unverifiable...), and I'm sure that there are cases in sport too. Peridon (talk) 11:48, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A documented concept well known in the military and education, and also in business, but the business section should be created and referenced. This is already a reasonable article, and can be expanded. --DThomsen8 (talk) 20:05, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Yes, it exists, and yes, there are references. But that doesn't mean WP needs an article on a dicdef. Dori ☾Talk ☯ Contribs☽ 02:57, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Actually, it's much more than a dictionary definition. It's an entire concept and aspect of teaching that has significant historical precedent in school curriculums since at least 1901 CE. The term also has notable and well-documented conceptual existence in business and military environments. Read the sources presented above for more information. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:31, 1 September 2012 (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.