- 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 `'Míkka>t 16:35, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Standard work (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
Nonencyclopedic original research. "Standard work" is a vague term, one of many of the kind: seminal work, influential work, standard textbook, standard reference, major work, classic work etc. ad infinitum. Mukadderat (talk) 00:12, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - no sources, and the term is pretty self-explanatory, so moving to wiktionary is probably not necessary. Pundit|utter 00:51, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - unless it can be supported with clearly defined references. As it is now, it appears to simply be original research tied specificly to a single religious body, which is already covered by Standard Works Dbiel (Talk) 01:34, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - this looks like an excuse for lots of original research. Karanacs (talk) 02:10, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - If there were references, I'd vote otherwise. Lack of references, and OR summarizes my vote. Soxred93 | talk bot 02:38, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, the sort of thing that would make a good Atlantic essay but not an encyclopedic article. There's no way we could source a list of "standard works", which is just an opinion anyway. It would be the equivalent of having List of four-star movies. --Dhartung | Talk 04:41, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete no refs, lot's of OR, so delete. RC-0722 247.5/1 16:43, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Delete it might be possible to write an article on this, but it would have to be done from scratch. DGG (talk) 01:31, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep. It's an extremely important designation by scholars in all fields. It is a mere {{stub}} and needs much development, and I'm going to designated it {{underconstruction}}. It is difficult to write about since it's hard to find reference. But it certainly is not since I did not discover this widely known practice of desifnating scholarly studies as standard works. --Ludvikus (talk) 13:37, 30 April 2008 (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.