Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Convenience


 * 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. (non-admin closure)  →TSU tp* 07:10, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Convenience

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

WP:DICDEF. This article has no actual content other than a definition. Most of it is unreferenced fluff such as examples of things thought to be "convenient" or "inconvenient" and other things vaguely related to the idea of "convenience." King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 22:45, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 00:02, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 00:02, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Northamerica1000(talk) 20:53, 10 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete, unsourced since 2007 and beyond, nothing but a dicdef, mess of weasel words and OR. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 00:33, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Convert to a dab page for Public toilet, Convenience Township, Pope County, Arkansas, and Convenience (horse), with a wiktionary link. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:18, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Convert to dab per above. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 01:44, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Convert to a disambiguation page. The topic fails WP:DICDEF; it's a word, not a term. Northamerica1000(talk) 19:28, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep WP:DICDEF is rarely a reason to delete because the point of that policy is that we should group topics by their meaning rather than not covering them at all. So what alternative headings might there be for this major concept?  Fit for purpose is a vogue phrase in the UK lately but is a redlink.  Labour-saving and time saving are red links too.  It seems then that this is the main article and so we should develop it under this existing title.  But are there sources from which to work?  There are search links conveniently placed above and they soon reveal some good sources.  Comfort, Cleanliness and Convenience has a chapter on the particular topic of convenience.  The Value of Convenience is an entire book which takes a broad philosophical approach.  The paper, Toward the construct of convenience in consumer research seems to be one of many papers analysing the concept in a multi-dimensional way in the context of consumer research and marketing.  The relevant policy here then is not WP:DICDEF but WP:IMPERFECT and so the article should be kept for improvement. Warden (talk) 08:01, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment I think it should be noted that, regardless of one's opinion on the Article Rescue Squadron as a whole, this article's listing on the rescue list is a blatant canvassing violation. It completely fails to make clear what it would like editors to do to "save" the article besides !vote, and by no stretch of the imagination does it come close to a neutral message to a neutral party.--Yaksar (let's chat) 17:57, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I wasn't too bothered about the !voting because nobody, not even TPH, agrees that we should be deleting this. The issue is now mainly a matter of ordinary editing and I consider this topic to be a good editing challenge.  It seemed good for the ARS to engage with this as such work is quite elevating.  The only editor that I've ever seen work at this level is Uncle G (see loyalty) and we could use a lot more like him.  Practice makes perfect...  Warden (talk) 19:54, 10 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep – (Struck my convert !vote above) Per the sources presented above by User:Colonel Warden:
 * ISBN 079141244X
 * ISBN 1859736300
 * — Northamerica1000(talk) 21:41, 10 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment – More sources:
 * — Northamerica1000(talk) 04:00, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
 * — Northamerica1000(talk) 04:00, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
 * — Northamerica1000(talk) 04:00, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
 * — Northamerica1000(talk) 04:00, 11 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep tons of sources. Cavarrone (talk) 11:32, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep per NA1000 and Cavarrone. Plenty of sources could be added to make a decent article. Bearian (talk) 22:43, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep Ample coverage of the concept of convenience, something most people are obsessed with having and refuse to live without.  D r e a m Focus  11:21, 12 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep although it seems strange to me that this one slipped through the cracks. Is there a similar article we could merge this with? Because convenience is a fundamental concept, so I figure it would already have an established presence. Deleting convenience would be like deleting efficiency. CaseyPenk (talk) 20:09, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep, I don't think it should be a DAB page, as the article page is the main meaning of the term. --Funandtrvl (talk) 20:33, 12 June 2012 (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.