Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Avocation


 * 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. A good deal of work has been done on the article to address the original objections about it being merely a dictionary definition. Sourcing of the entries, hopefully, will follow, and some "citation needed" tags are in order. Mandsford 20:11, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Avocation

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Article is a dictionary definition that has not evolved beyond that in 3 years. Better for wiktionary. c y m r u . l a s s (talk me, stalk me) 06:23, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete Yikes. Dictionary definition, plain as plain can be. At best, this could be a redirect. Bias towards deletion outright. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡ  bomb  08:50, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep This article is one of those examples of something that just needed someone to pay attention to it. I've added references, interwiki links, an external links section and more content. It still needs work, but it's not worthy of deletion. --evrik (talk) 21:08, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:59, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep The OED's explanation of the word seems somewhat different, giving it a mostly negative sense as a distraction or minor bywork from one's main work or calling. But I'd agree that the topic merits further work to clarify and explain the matter well. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:57, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. I think it needs improvement to become an encyclopaedic article, but I think this is very possible, and worthwhile Pi        (Talk to me!  ) 04:26, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. Just as valid a subject for an encyclopedia as "hobby", which also has an article. -- Evans1982 (talk)
 * Comment Perhaps we could agree to call this a redirect to the Hobby article? An avocation is, in essence, a hobby. The first line of the article says exactly that (and every dictionary I can find agrees) and I can't think of anything this article will contribute that is not already covered by the hobby article. My bias is still towards outright deletion -- the phrasing of the opening paragraph is straight-up definition stuff, and I don't know how it can be rephrased without being inaccurate -- but I could agree to calling this a redirect. An avocation is a hobby. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡ  bomb  09:16, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, lifebaka++ 02:59, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * General Comment (to be taken in concert with my delete vote above): I've reviewed what's been added to this article. We have: an extension of the existing dictionary definition of the word "avocation." We also now have a Robert Frost poem that uses the word "avocation" as part of an "avocation in literature" section. We also now have a list -- a hopelessly unmanageable one, at that -- of people whose "avocations" are not the same as their "vocations." Uhm. That list could basically include everybody in human history, given the respective definitions of the words "avocation" and "vocation" (hint: that letter 'a' at the beginning means something) Leaving aside, for the moment, that by definition one's avocation would inevitably not be the same as one's vocation, I do not see anything in these new additions that makes this an encyclopedic article. What was formerly a dictionary definition is now a dictionary definition with a random Robert Frost poem and a list of people whose hobbies are not the same as their full time jobs -- a list that could be expanded to include everybody in the known universe, I think. I'm fine with redirecting to the existing article at Hobby -- an "avocation" is, by definition, a Hobby.  ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡ  bomb  09:25, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * 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.