Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Non-productive activity


 * 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   delete. Delete per Col Warden. If someone can source a proper article this is specifically allowed Spartaz Humbug! 12:41, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Non-productive activity

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Orphaned definition article. I suppose this falls under NOTDICTIONARY, but since the phrase is self-explanatory, I'm not even sure it qualifies as a dictionary definition.  Ja Ga  talk 04:49, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep This is a critically important concept in economics and business management that has the potential to be far more than a self-explanatory dictionary definition. The current stub is weak, but the solution is expansion and improvement through normal editing, rather than deletion.  Cullen 328   Let's discuss it  05:11, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
 * If this were a critically important concept then we should have no difficulty finding some good sources which explain and detail the concept. But, when I look, such sources do not seem to come easily to hand.  As it stands, we don't have any acceptable source for this topic. Warden (talk) 23:31, 29 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete The current content is wrong and tendentious. Determining what is or is not productive is a value judgement and so requires high-quality sources to avoid violating WP:NPOV and WP:OR.  For example, the Marxist concept of non-productive activity would include finance and entrepreneurial activity of the capitalist kind.  Or others might say that working on Wikipedia is non-productive because it is derivative and has no financial value.  And don't get me started on whether AFD is productive ... Warden (talk) 23:36, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 00:27, 28 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep, very weakly. I wouldn't be heartbroken to see this minimal stub deleted.  Making this a red link might encourage the writing of a real article here.  On the other hand, there's no reason to erase this text from the history of any future article either.  Is there a subject this might redirect to, that covers the limited aspect better?  That might work as a stopgap. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:52, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - its not exactly self explanatory, as the Cite I have added indicates. Implications & usage goes far beyond just Economics. Exit2DOS • Ctrl • Alt • Del 22:04, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The source which you have cited is unsatisfactory. The topic of that passage is homework and the phrase non-productive activity is just used there in an ordinary way, without being a topic in itself. Moreover the author seems undistinguished and his books are self-published. Warden (talk) 23:23, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I have added another, specifically talking about Economics/Labor by Nikki R. Keddie. The term is well understood and often used is a variety of spheres, even though its nuances are ...shifting. Exit2DOS • Ctrl • Alt • Del 19:21, 30 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:OR. I hold such a judgement is closely tied to the worldview of the individual and/or the culture. Which culture are we discussing, BTW? From an employer standpoint, or an employee view? From a gymnast's perspective, or from an accountant's. Context is important. Neither of the applied sources discusses the subject, but both happen to use the exact wording once each. (first source is a self-published book, so fails WP:IRS) User:Colonel Warden is correct above that a much higher standard of sourcing must be applied to concept pagespace, lest we fail the reader by cherry picking during a deletion process, more likely picking low-hanging fruit while the best choices are nowhere in reach and so making the page worse. Here's a better source, but I've seen no secondary analysis. As the page is currently written, entirely subjective, failing sourcing, nothing here to keep and no way of verifying the assertions. BusterD (talk) 15:25, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete as a confused OR dicdef. No objection to from-scratch recreation as a useful article, if there is any to be written about this topic.  Sandstein   07:35, 4 September 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.