Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Study skills
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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. Icewedge (talk) 03:52, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Study skills (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
Contains HowTo content, no sources, and pretty much completely covered by http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Study_Skills jftsang 11:58, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Looks more like Wikibooks content than an encyclopaedia article to me. 85.148.120.85 (talk) 12:23, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- Arbitrarily0 (talk) 18:34, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The article is in poor shape, but it has a potential for improvement. The subject is certainly important.Biophys (talk) 03:41, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Just take a look at Google Scholar where you will see that the topic of Study Skills has itself been subjected to academic study - near the top of the list of over 35,000 papers are ones with titles such as Contributions of Study Skills to Academic Competence, Study skills and study competence: getting the priorities right, Research Synthesis on Study Skills etc. This shows that it's perfectly possible to write an encyclopedic article about the subject which is not a how-to guide, as most of the current content is. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:41, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - sure its in bad shape but it is an encyclopaedic subject and there are plenty of sources available from which to rewrite it. We don't delete pages that need attention, we improve 'em. TerriersFan (talk) 20:08, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Try to rewrite the article before putting it up for deletion. Pastor Theo (talk) 01:11, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 22:38, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I have undone a premature (Jan. 28) non-admin closure of this AfD and am relisting it to ensure that it is listed on an AfD page for at least five days. Sandstein 22:40, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The lead paragraph is the only encyclopedic part of this article. Three and a half years after its creation, this article is so firmly established that the ordinary editing process is unlikely to make it encyclopedic. Drastic surgery is required. Therefore, stub the article or delete outright, with no prejudice to re-creation if an interested editor wants to write an encyclopedic article on this topic. Baileypalblue (talk) 23:06, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- If the lead paragraph is encyclopaedic, then deletion is not the answer. You, using your ordinary editing tools, to edit the article, is the answer. If you want the article pared of inappropriate content back down to a stub, or rewritten, or improved, then do it yourself. All of those are cleanup actions that you can do yourself. The closing administrator is not an article editing service. Xe is a volunteer just as you are. {{sofixit}} applies. And AFD is not cleanup. Uncle G (talk) 00:24, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not inclined to stub this article in the middle of a discussion, because it's possible that others will disagree with my assessment and conclude that other sections are encyclopedic and should be kept. Alternately, a consensus could develop that the entire article, including the lead paragraph, is not encyclopedic, in which case I'm happy to let my !vote stand as an acquiescence to deletion. Conceivably a more detailed discussion of which parts of the article are or are not encyclopedic could reframe the view of the article as a whole. That said, if you are confident the article should be stubbed, feel free to {{sofixit}} yourself. Baileypalblue (talk) 02:24, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- If the lead paragraph is encyclopaedic, then deletion is not the answer. You, using your ordinary editing tools, to edit the article, is the answer. If you want the article pared of inappropriate content back down to a stub, or rewritten, or improved, then do it yourself. All of those are cleanup actions that you can do yourself. The closing administrator is not an article editing service. Xe is a volunteer just as you are. {{sofixit}} applies. And AFD is not cleanup. Uncle G (talk) 00:24, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep There's enough sources through Google search (and I'll add some) that the article can be improved with sites (and a whole lot of cleanup). — Ched (talk) 03:07, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Keep Get on with it!. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:10, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "hangon" tag added. Sources, copyedit, "How To" is being trimmed, section cleanup added, improvements being made. added, and article is being worked on. Concerns and questions can be posted to either the The articles talk page or My talk page. The subject matter is notable, and sources are verifiable. There is not a current wikipedia time-limit in effect for articles. Please consider closing this AfD with a keep. — Ched (talk) 18:08, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Needs a major rewrite and more sourcing, but the topic is notable and has many notable subtopics. -Neitherday (talk) 18:18, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Encyclopedic, and sourceable...and it's (literally) snowing outside.--Michig (talk) 20:30, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Phil Bridger. ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 18:17, 2 February 2009 (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.