Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bowyer


 * 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. Spartaz Humbug! 12:33, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Bowyer
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Coatrack, WPINAD, NOTABILITY, more, see below This article may be the quintessential coatrack article. Is there a contest? Because this one really deserves to be nominated. Looking at the content,
 * The first paragraph is a dictionary entry, violating WP:WINAD. It is conceivable that a "bowyer" page could be encyclopedic rather than a pure dictionary entry, but even if someone took the time to write it, it wouldn't contain any of the information currently on the page, thus deletion of the page is still warranted.


 * The subsequent content breaks into several off-topic categories, containing no information about the profession in historical or current contexts.
 * Kinds of bows made by bowyers, violating
 * Materials used in bowmaking
 * How to make a bow
 * Videos of interesting things that happen when bows are made.


 * Lastly it is substantially a list of living, practicing bowyers who are (apparently) not in and of themselves worthy of an entry, violating WP:Notability

Be gentle, this is only the second time I've recommended deletion of a page Riventree (talk) 16:34, 1 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment. It seems possible that a valid article might be created on this topic.  I note that we already have an article for the Worshipful Company of Bowyers, the London guild founded in 1371 when the bowyers and the fletchers found that they couldn't get along.  Books about the profession can be seen at GBooks, such as   and . Also, a couple of the bowyers on the list do appear to have their own articles and it's possible that a few more of them are notable for their writings on the topic.   I agree, however, that the current article is unfocused.--15:56, 2 September 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arxiloxos (talk • contribs)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:21, 3 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep. An article being poorly written is not usually an argument for it to be deleted. Agree with • Gene93k that it should be re-written in a more focused way. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:17, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep I've removed some dubious / promotional sources. The rest needs some work, but the core is there. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:21, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Original delete-suggestor chiming in
 * Gene93k and Martinevans123: You're right. Badly written is NOT a good enough reason to delete a page. I wouldn't suggest that.
 * Stuartyeates: Thanks for the deletions. But your statement "The core is there" really stumps me.
 * Presuming the Keep folks are right and a non-dictionary page could be made about this profession, I assert that there is essentially no content on this page which applies (beyond some generalizations in the self bowyer section and the intro)

Section by section, my arguments:


 * Distinctions without difference: There are virtually NO non-wikipedia-cut-and-paste instances of the terms "self bowyer" "composite bowyer" or "glass bowyer", so it appears that all three sections were invented on the spot by people who were attempting to differentiate themselves from one another in volation of the self-promotion and notability guidelines.
 * Every bit of text in the "Self bowyer" section (except the time-required sentence) applies to all bowyers, so there's no need for the 'self bowyer' section itself.
 * Virtually all the text in the "Composite bowyer" section belongs in the "composite bow" page because it's about the bow, not the maker. It's not really about boywers at all, except to say they were skilled craftsman, something covered in the intro
 * The "fiberglass bows" section is mostly written from the No True Scotsman perspective: The remainder belongs in the "longbow" page as notes on construction. It's not really about boywers at all
 * The "how to make a bow" section is wholly in violation of NOTHOWTO and It's not really about boywers at all
 * The "bowyers in the united states" section contains no encyclopedic data at all. It is a list of people who (according to the page) MAY have made their own bows, and how this MAY have affected another list of people, with uncited claims promoting a book at the end.
 * For what it's worth, I own the book being promoted. I like it. I've recommended it to friends. It's just not relevant to a page on bowyers. Bows or bowmaking: yes. Bowyers, no.
 * This section is probably about bowyers, but without any support for the cases mentioned. Why not list Thomas Jefferson? He made a lot of cool stuff, and probably made bows as well. This is not encyclopedic content.

I'm not unsympathetic to the subject - I think it's an interesting field. I just propose we delete this page. If everyone's right about there being room for an encyclopedic entry, someone else will come along and write it and we'll all be happy.

Riventree (talk) 02:47, 9 September 2014 (UTC) 
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 09:52, 9 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete The article (with the exception of a small listing of names of unclear notability near the bottom) is not really about Bowyers at all - most of the information is found in the Bows and Arrows article.  One possibility would be to do a redirect as was have for Fletcher->Fletching but again delete seems the best option.Peter Rehse (talk) 10:47, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep. Not a good article, certainly, but the craft of bowyer is certainly a perfectly acceptable subject for an article. We don't delete articles on notable subjects because they're not well-written; we delete inappropriate content and then improve the article. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:56, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 12:58, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 12:58, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

All of the following are true:
 * Everyone (including those voting for deletion) knows that Wikipedia does not delete articles based on being badly written. Necrothesp, you might notice that we've already had this conversation twice above.
 * Everyone (including those voting for deletion) knows that virtually every noun or verb in the dictionary could be filled out to be an encyclopedic entry worthy of wikipedia.
 * Many (including myself) have direct interest in the subject of bows and are confident that someday someone will take the time to write such a page for the term "bowyer".

Deleting an entry:
 * Doesn't make it hard to create a good entry later
 * Improves the quality of wikipedia in general
 * Prevents the incorrect and offtopic information currently in the page from being broadcast

Please:
 * 1) Read the actual arguments for deletion (coatrack, WP:Notability,  WP:WINAD)
 * 2) Examine the actual article to see if they are applicable
 * 3) Vote

By the way, User:PRehse's idea of leaving the entry here as a redirect to bow and arrow sounds like a good middle ground - I'd vote for that as well.


 * Riventree (talk) 17:06, 11 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete: (coatrack, WP:Notability, WP:WINAD) Riventree (talk) 17:07, 11 September 2014 (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.