Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Origami techniques
- 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. There may be a case to be made for Transwiki, but there does not appear to be a consensus to delete this material entirely. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:40, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Origami techniques (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails WP:NOTHOWTO. You are not supposed to go to wikipedia to learn how to fold origamis. Ftiercel (talk) 19:02, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Transwiki to wikibooks. They need it. The deletion has also been discussed in the talk page. Ftiercel (talk) 19:02, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Transwiki per above; looks like it would fit right in at Wikibooks. Several Times (talk) 19:34, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete This would be good for a how-to website, but not wikipedia. RomeEonBmbo (talk) 21:06, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:26, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Transwiki to Wikibooks. This would fit there. -- Joaquin008 (talk) 10:25, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- NOTE to admin: The AFD for this article was submitted without placing a notice on the article page. I have added the notice to the article, and the listing period should be adjusted accordingly. -- Whpq (talk) 16:55, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep - The techniques of origami are fundamental aspect of the topic, and as such, is a perfectly valid topic for an article. The article itself is not exclusively a HOW-TO guide. Listing the various basic folds used is necessary information for a complete treatment of the topic. At the risk of having an anology go off the rails, and having WP:OTHERSTUFF thrown at me... We have articles on baseball pitches such as the split-finger fastball complete with photographs showing how to hold the ball, and explaining how the pitch is thrown. Removing such an article would result in a hole in the coverage of baseball in Wikipedia. Similarly, for this article. Some folds form base forms used to construct many other figures. See page 23 from [1] as an example. Material such as this can be used to expand the article providing more information about origami without it being a how-to manual. One important point to note is that the article does not explain how to make any origami figures. If it lurched into that territory, then that material would be fair game for removale from the article, bit still wouldn't be grounds for deletion. -- Whpq (talk) 17:06, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Proposer misunderstands what not howto means. It simply means we shouldn't write articles as a howto, it is a question of how the material is presented, just like the injunction that it is not a textbook. Notice how NOTHOWTO phrases it 'Wikipedia articles should not read like'. Not 'contain' but 'read like'. The article does not describe how to do things, it describes origami techniques which is a very notable topic. Dmcq (talk) 20:43, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:NOTHOWTO is located in the Content section of WP:NOT, thus it concerns the content of any particular article rather than style. It might also help to note how the section opens: "In any encyclopedia, information cannot be included solely for being true or useful." It's open to interpretation, certainly, but there are more appropriate places for articles which are mostly instructional in nature. Seriously, what's so wrong with Wikibooks? Several Times (talk) 21:57, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - The topic of origami techniques is a perfectly valid one for an encyclopedia to document. The article that we have has perhaps some element of how-to in it, but I disagree that the bulk of the article is such. As such, the correct course of action is to improve it by collaboratively editting it. Incremental improvements are how articles are built. -- Whpq (talk) 22:49, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Either this article will be kept or not, this article will be transwikied to wikibooks as it is needed there. The problem is that if this article will be kept here, it will need to be followed and fixed in the two places (i.e. I will have to follow the both articles) and that's bad news. Morever, It will be very hard to suit the licence policy. If someone will change the article on wikipedia, we will have to add this change on wikibooks too, but its user name will not appear. Lastly, as wikipedia is more famous than wikibooks, the wikipedia article version will hide the wikibooks page version. Ftiercel (talk) 07:18, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Well that's a change from the usual WP:OTHERSTUFF arguments I've seen. Such an argument has no relevance whatsoever to Wikipedia. You can copy what you like to Wikibooks but deleting this article is not going to make the wikibook any better and the style of a wikibook is (or should be) quite different so it would need rewriting. If an article about a battery describes the construction of a battery then a person can go away and construct their own battery. That does not mean we can then go and delete the article on batteries as violating WP:HOWTO. WP:NOT does in many instances describe style rather than substance. Instead of saying 'you then pack in a paste of ammonium chloride and manganese dioxide to fill the space between the carbon rod the electrolyte to act as a depolariser' you say the 'The remaining space between the electrolyte and carbon cathode is taken up by a second paste consisting of ammonium chloride and manganese dioxide, the latter acting as a depolariser'. For dosa you say 'Rice is ground finely to form a batter.' rather than 'First grind the rice finely (or buy rice flour) and make a batter with it.' Whether a topic can be included or not is governed by notability, Howto style language is something you stick a tag on the article about and fix. Dmcq (talk) 08:02, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Either this article will be kept or not, this article will be transwikied to wikibooks as it is needed there. The problem is that if this article will be kept here, it will need to be followed and fixed in the two places (i.e. I will have to follow the both articles) and that's bad news. Morever, It will be very hard to suit the licence policy. If someone will change the article on wikipedia, we will have to add this change on wikibooks too, but its user name will not appear. Lastly, as wikipedia is more famous than wikibooks, the wikipedia article version will hide the wikibooks page version. Ftiercel (talk) 07:18, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - The topic of origami techniques is a perfectly valid one for an encyclopedia to document. The article that we have has perhaps some element of how-to in it, but I disagree that the bulk of the article is such. As such, the correct course of action is to improve it by collaboratively editting it. Incremental improvements are how articles are built. -- Whpq (talk) 22:49, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:NOTHOWTO is located in the Content section of WP:NOT, thus it concerns the content of any particular article rather than style. It might also help to note how the section opens: "In any encyclopedia, information cannot be included solely for being true or useful." It's open to interpretation, certainly, but there are more appropriate places for articles which are mostly instructional in nature. Seriously, what's so wrong with Wikibooks? Several Times (talk) 21:57, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep The purpose of the article is to explain how various origami techniques are related. The article provides essential concepts and context for other discussions of origami on wikipedia. It also hints at a method for classifying the difficulty of origami models. -- Jasper (talk) 05:20, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Transwiki to wikibooks. Nice article but fails WP:NOTHOWTO. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 15:51, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- 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.