Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Office Etiquette

 This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus, so keep (with suggestion to merge to etiquette) Also, I'm going to excercise my editorial (and not administerial) prerogative and move it to Office etiquette (lowe case) per naming convention. Dmcdevit·t 07:59, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

Office Etiquette

 * Probably fits a lot better on H2G2 than Wikipedia. --Paula Sandusky 08:36, July 24, 2005 (UTC)


 * Non-encyclopedic humor RoySmith 15:18, 15 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete or Merge with Etiquette. Manik Raina 15:57, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Don't know that it's humor, but non-encyclopedic. Redirect to etiquette unless rewritten substantially. Meelar (talk) 16:02, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
 * Would the goal of the re-writing be to make it more encyclopedic or more humorous? :-) RoySmith 16:56, 15 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Don't Delete Don't worry, I am planning on making this much more than a list. It is not humor. Read the discussion page. What is the policy on Wiki? Do all articles need to be in complete condition before they are posted or can an incomplete article be posted and then finished? This thing has only been up for a day. If this one is subject to deletion than so should Dance_etiquette and just about everything else in the Etiquette category. Would adding the stub template avoid this problem? I don't see anything regarding these rules in the wiki tutorial or elsewhere. Ravedave 17:22, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
 * To answer your question: this is OK material, it's just not an encyclopedia article. For more information, see The perfect article, as well as What Wikipedia is not. Or take a look at a few featured articles, to see what the eventual goal is. This article is more prescriptive and how-to rather than an encyclopedia article that defines a phenomenon. Best, Meelar (talk) 18:21, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, unencylopedic unless this can be turned into a sensible comparative study of the differences around the world, though I suspect we have that somewhere already. I agree with the author that everything in the category (apart from Wikiquette) should go (including his article, I'm afraid). Just look at Public cardroom etiquette (poker)!-Splash 17:34, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Put Netiquette up for deletion as well as this article please Ravedave 18:20, 15 July 2005 (UTC)


 * NOTE complete re-write as of this time. Ravedave 18:58, 15 July 2005 (UTC)


 * I appreciate the effort you put into the rewrite, but while the presentation may be substantially improved, I still think the topic is just not encyclopedia material. As for the rest of the category, Etiquette, Customs and etiquette in Hawaii and Etiquette of Japan seem to me the only ones worth keeping, but that's another VfD for another day.  RoySmith 19:18, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
 * I dont follow. You disagree with this topic (could be called Etiquette of an Office), but agree with another exactly parallel article Etiquette of Japan? Please explain why one falls on one side of a line and the other does not - in Topic terms, not content terms. We need to be consistant in this matter, so all articles in the Etiquette category need to need to be deleted or not (excluding the meta article Wikiquette). Can we create a VfD for All distinct Etiquette articles and hash this out there instead? Ravedave 19:31, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
 * The articles I cited contrast cultures around the world. I find that interesting (obviously, there's a lot of subjectivity here).  Etiquette in the office seems rather banal to me.  Perhaps if I were Japanese I would find the Japan article banal as well.  RoySmith 19:43, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
 * How does that fit in with determining if an entry is enyclopedic? Ravedave 20:21, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep - this is encyclopedic. Andreww 22:42, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Let's see. First, strip out the how-to (Wikipedia is not a finishing school). Next, strip out the unverifiable information (e.g., snapping at someone is considered inappropriate in some parts of the US). Next, strip out the non-encyclopedic gas and filler (customs vary by region). And we're left with ... a dicdef! And an unhelpful one at that. Delete -EDM 00:04, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
 * "encyclopedic ... embracing all branches of learning; full of information, comprehensive.". So I would argue that topics with whole books that discuss the subject should be included. Andreww 02:39, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep - Office culture is vast and varies greatly, its a deep topic with alot of factual evidence to potentially make this a very insightful article, it's encyclopedic. Also, snapping at someone being seen as a rude act most definately is verifiable, not just in some parts of the US either, how could it possibly not be? 0104, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Source please? -EDM 00:17, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Source? This is ridiculous, you walk into any office and be relentlessly moody and see what happens.. snapping at someone being considered not good etiquette shouldn't need any linkage or a source provided, what could possibly be linked to anyway? Maybe there is some obscure thesis out there or research on how lashing out at others all the time is not considered polite, but you've got to be kidding me if I have to provide it.. having said that, by the same token I don't see it as a very informative thing to be put in an article, its a bit.. obvious?
 * You bet. But no less informative than the rest of the article. -EDM 02:27, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
 * But if you want a source there are one or two websites (a random selection includes:, , , but Google lists more) and books (e.g. Grace Fox, "Office Etiquette and Protocol"; Post & Post, "The Etiquette Advantage in Business : Personal Skills for Professional Success"; Sue Fox "Business Etiquette for Dummies"), not to mention all the little things in company handbooks, induction packs and intro guides. Andreww 02:39, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete no links in the article namespace, and Wikipedia does not do lists. &mdash; Il&gamma;&alpha;&eta;&epsilon;&rho;   (T&alpha;l&kappa;) '' 02:34, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
 * What does 'no links in the article namespace' mean? Can provide an example? The wiki namespace stuff doesn't clear it up for me. The article is not currently a list, like the 1st iteration Ravedave 03:21, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia does do lists. At least 48,400 of them according to a google search on ' list of '. Ravedave 04:32, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

Merge and redirect to ettiquette. Howabout1 Talk to me! 04:36, July 16, 2005 (UTC)

Merge Not my cup of tea - the phrase honour among thieves comes to mind -- but merge with etiquette. --Simon.Pole 08:31, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

Merge with etiquette. It'd be worth keeping if there were massive improvement of content beyond its present "behave as is polite for where you are, with whatever extra rules the company has". This is a complex area: it needs stuff like cultural differences, the crossover with office politics and netiquette, reference to people like Robert Townsend who tried to alter office culture (seeing etiquette as one of the ways inefficient business practice is propagated - as Simon says, honour among thieves), etc. It also needs quality sources (anyone can sit down and write a list of things not to do in the office, and most such online guides are just personal views). Company etiquette summaries like this umass.edu one are worth reading as objective sources. There are plenty of topic ideas at the office etiquette section of the Wall Street Journal's executive careers site here. Tearlach 17:34, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge as above. Radiant_ &gt;|&lt; 13:13, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. I think it's notable enough. -- A Link to the Past 20:15, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Needs expanding as above. -- Meersan 02:08, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep and expand. Derktar 05:05, July 21, 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.