Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Description error


 * 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.  Wifione  Message 18:04, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Description error

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

WP:OR. Needs to be rewritten at the very least, it not deleted outright -- Mdann 52   talk to me!  12:20, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Interaction design (or whatever the best article is) Book source here, also a brief passing mention of what appears to be the term in Don Norman's seminal "The Design of Everyday Things" p.60, so it has reference in reliable sources, but not enough for a standalone article. Ritchie333  (talk)  (cont)   13:57, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:39, 9 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete - WP:DICTIONARY. ~KvnG 18:00, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Please see WP:JUSTAPOLICY. As explained above, there is some coverage in sources that takes it away from being a simple definition. Ritchie333  (talk)  (cont)   10:21, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The first is no more than a definition. The second uses Description but not Description error. I did originally look for sources and found a definition or two but did not find any significant coverage. ~KvnG 14:56, 12 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lankiveil (speak to me) 12:31, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

 
 * Redirect to Interaction Design - I agree with this, and also that the article is more of a definition and therefore maybe should have its own article in Wiktionary. So I would be willing to incorporate it into that article if that is the resolution here.  Actually, after a little more investigation, it might be more appropriate to incorporate it into the human error article. Spalding (talk) 12:16, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Expand to have enough encyclopaedic content to stand alone - A little more investigation shows that similar items like poka-yoke have encyclopaedic articles, so I would be willing to start off on an improvement to bring it up to the standard required. This would help WP:Build the web.  Spalding (talk) 12:43, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Relisted to allow Spalding a week or so to improve the article.


 * In case the article is not improved, the closing admin may delete the article or redirect it appropriately. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Wifione  Message 17:17, 24 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment Keep Certainly notable as a concept - for example aircraft controls are often designed with this in mind, eg in handles having a different shape, requiring to be moved in a different way from each other, etc. Not a sub-category of Interaction design, which seems to be used only for virtual objects, though the reverse might possibly be the case. I am not qualified to suggest what other term it might be covered under already in WP, or what sources are appropriate, but safety-critical things such as this have a specialist literature. Psychologists may be familiar with this in another guise. --AJHingston (talk) 17:46, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Finding sources is crucial for making a keep/delete decision. If no sources turn up before the AfD closes, the article can be deleted without prejudice and created again once sources are found. ~KvnG 21:16, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The phenomenon is well known, important, will have been studied and this is a reasonable search term. It may well already be covered in Wikipedia under another heading, and if not ought to be. The term should redirect there, or even vice versa. Our failure to identify that or appropriate sources is a measure of our ignorance. --AJHingston (talk) 08:48, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Ignorance or is it inclination to talk about research in preference doing research. ~KvnG 14:07, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 13:11, 25 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment The original complaint was about original research, which I assure you it is not, so I will add references. The concept comes mostly from the work of Donald Norman as far as I can tell, so I will integrate a good paper by him, a noted scholar in the field.  As of now I have made a first pass, but I am not very proficient in adding references, so I added that paper as an external link.  In my opinion, the article is now sufficient to have the proposed deletion withdrawn.  Spalding (talk) 00:15, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Multiple sources are required to establish notability. If someone can come up with one more reference, we'll be set. ~KvnG 15:39, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The problem here does not seem to be with the subject matter but whether description error is the right name. It may well be that it is more commonly written about under some other term and if so that is something that can be dealt with under normal editing in due course, but nobody so far has come up with one. It seems to me that the evidence that the phenomenon has been understood for many years and of the measures taken to address it (eg shape/texture/colour/etc coding of controls) are ample evidence of notability. Note that other references point to application outside the field of aircraft, eg mining, so it is not specific to them. Similarly, other ways of addressing the problem can be followed beside coding of controls. It is the concept that should be addressed in this article. --AJHingston (talk) 18:00, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I think we now have multiple sources. I have called out the selection error synonym in the lead (a redirect was already in place) and added these two articles to the EL section. ~KvnG 20:25, 30 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep Delete per WP:IDONTUNDERSTANDIT is not yet policy. This is not a dicdef, it's an encyclopedia topic. It's a niche subject, but usability design is a real discipline and description error is one real and sourceable topic within this, along with capture error and mode error. Much as for Type II chip, this is nit-picking nonsense until such time as you actually need to design a cutting machine or to investigate a pilot error aircrash. Specific and narrow topics are no reason to delete from WP, and some readers from some backgrounds do appreciate having them around. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:31, 30 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep The topic looks notable. Two books are mentioned, but not formally referenced, in the article as discussing description error. Description error is understood to be a potentially serious problem in medicine, and is described in the papers and . The concept is also used in cognitive psychology . The Human Error book and the three papers mentioned are all secondary sources; the two medical papers are peer reviewed from good journals. The topic seems to pass notability threshold per WP:GNG. The article could use some reference and citations to those references. The article could also use some links to other cognitive error concepts, like mode error. The prose is otherwise well written, so there are no insurmountable problems, per WP:SURMOUNTABLE. A notable topic and surmountable article problems suggests keeping the article. --Mark viking (talk) 20:21, 30 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep Notability established by new sources in EL section. ~KvnG 20:25, 30 October 2013 (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.