Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cage (enclosure) (2nd nomination)


 * 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. But it may behove to expand the article with sources so that it doesn't look like a dictionary definition. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:05, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

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

This isn't an encyclopedic article; it's been tagged as unsourced since 2007. The last AfD in 2005 closed as keep with many believing (falsely) that it was a stub with potential for expansion, which clearly hasn't happened in the past 12 years. Wiktionary already has a definition for this word and sufficient encyclopedia articles on specific types of cages don't require an article about a cage as a type of enclosure. Chris Troutman ( talk ) 15:20, 30 September 2017 (UTC)




 * Keep - The subject definitely is notable, and it isn't totally unsourced. Thus, the article would not fall under WP:TNT or WP:GNG. So, it should be kept. RileyBugz 会話 投稿記録  15:02, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep (SNOW) Does anyone seriously think sources can't be found? Not a dict def, similar non-dictdef articles on things are Box etc. Nom overlooks it being a WP:DABCONCEPT at the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC which solves issues with it, and with the WP:PTM in the dab. Dabconcepts shouldn't be deleted just because they're difficult (per guideline) or not done yet. Widefox ; talk 16:34, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment I've RMed to move this to the primary topic so it becomes the broadconcept. It turns out that this was suggested at the first AfD but never done. Widefox ; talk 21:41, 1 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:NOTDICT. This "article" is a DICDEF plus a list, and the list of various cages already appears on the cage disambiguation page.  —  AjaxSmack  02:31, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Please reason why you think this is a dictdef? User talk:AjaxSmack the previous WP:Articles for deletion/Cage (enclosure) consensus was that this can be expanded and moved to the primary topic. I've started the latter and expanded the see also to broaden the scope for the broadconcept. We have Box Door Handle etc, "a thing" per WP not Wikt in WP:NOTDIC. A poor stub/start != dict entry per se. The fact that this is a crap article is also not a reason to delete WP:AFDNOTCLEANUP. There's 36 other language ones too, at least fr and de can be translated to improve this today.  Widefox ; talk 08:28, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
 * WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 14:08, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Chris, the nom is weak and there's simple questions unanswered - 1. it is sourced, 2. the topic is a "thing" per the other examples box etc 3. did you see the French or German versions, there's 36 other languages versions! ++ The previous Keep AfD was when a stub, now it's not even a stub and sourcing passes WP:GNG, the nom needs explaining in terms of the similar "things" we cover. Widefox ; talk 15:56, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
 * "Cage" is for the word cage. "Cage (enclosure)" is for the concept of a cage. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:22, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
 * The concept at Cage (enclosure) is a clear WP:primary topic so should move to Cage (compared to the rest of the topics at the dab). The dab moves to Cage (disambiguation). The dab is only for ambiguous titles for navigation, rather than for the word (but yes should have a wikt link). Previously the dab was a WP:PTM mess with the primary topic lost in the entries. That served readers badly at the current location (and hindered expansion), which got worse when adding different examples of cages all of which are WP:PTM. With cage as a WP:DABCONCEPT this works per If the primary meaning of a term proposed for disambiguation is a broad concept or type of thing that is capable of being described in an article, and a substantial portion of the links asserted to be ambiguous are instances or examples of that concept or type, then the page located at that title should be an article describing it, and not a disambiguation page. . This involves broadening the scope of the broadconcept. Widefox ; talk 20:10, 2 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep, per RileyBugz and Widefox. It's admittedly brief but is not un-sourced, and is in the same family as thousands of other Wikipedia articles on common physical objects: handle, seesaw, lintel, boat, etc. Could easily be improved, and should be the primary topic for the term. ╠╣uw [ talk ]  09:01, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment Please also respond to the redirect that is part of this deletion: Animal enclosure > Cage (enclosure) at Redirects_for_discussion. --RAN (talk) 17:44, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep, absolutely. A cage can best be thought of as a fundamental tool. A rich direction for expansion currently missing from this article is an explanation of when in human history the cage was invented in various cultures and civilizations, and how it has changed over time. What is the earliest archaeological evidence for construction and use of cages? This is conceptually similar to the article I created at Container (after having been advised that such an article would be impossible to write, because the concept is too abstract). Now it has an entire WikiProject supporting it. bd2412  T 00:18, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, exactly. I had a quick look for such history. Widefox ; talk 07:57, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

PS: People who cite WP:DICDEF and WP:NOT actually need to them, with understanding. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ &gt;ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ&lt;  06:35, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Obvious keep, as a basic topic we must have an article on, though the page clearly needs some work. This should be WP:SNOW closed.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ &gt;ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ&lt;  02:10, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep I echo the sentiments above. This topic goes beyond a mere DICDEF. Lepricavark (talk) 02:12, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep per BD2412, Huwmanbeing, Widefox, SMcCandlish and others. This is definitely well beyond DICTDEF, it's a basic concept. The article needs expansion and more content, but definitely is needed. The idea of making it WP:PRIMARY at the title of the dab page is worth considering as well, but that's a different discussion.  Montanabw (talk) 15:22, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep 80 items listed at Google Books contain the phrase "cage construction materials" indicating that this is a topic worthy of notice. Plus general arguments laid out by Widefox, et al. The fact that it exist in so many other languages' Wikipedias is very persuasive, though I take this with a grain of salt as they tend to be poorly referenced by our standards. ☆ Bri (talk) 16:43, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep because sources are out there. I'm in a hurry today, but tomorrow I should be able to find and add some. A note, a lot of people who keep guinea pigs build their own cages for them and books on pigs therefore can be RS on cages. White Arabian Filly  Neigh 21:52, 3 October 2017 (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.