Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Creative work

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. Not a slam dunk, but a growing consensus to keep the article.Mojo Hand (talk) 03:43, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Creative work

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Without sources since several years. PRODed more than once. Not an encyclopedic issue. Maybe could go to Wictionary. Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 16:27, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is not permitted to PROD an article more than once. That indicates ignorance of our deletion policies. It is not a favourable sign for deletion. It indicates that the people who are itching to delete this article are not likely to know what should or should not be deleted. James500 (talk) 17:13, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Snowball keep. Utterly absurd nomination. Should be closed immediately. Satisfies GNG easily and by a very wide margin. Amongst other things, very important concept in British and Irish tax law (Ireland: Taxes Consolidation Act 1997, s 195; Finance Act 1994, s 14; Finance Act 1969, s 2. United Kingdom: Finance Act 2001, Sch 24; Income Tax (Trading and Other Income) Act 2005, s 221). Massive coverage in GBooks. Plausible redirect or dab page (though that is probably purely academic since this will obviously be kept). The only criticism of this article is that it is an awful stub. But that is no grounds to delete anything, see WP:IMPERFECT. James500 (talk) 17:01, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I recognize I PRODed a previously PRODed article and it has been my mistake. Sorry. (Thanks for waking me up.) Whether I know or not our deletion policies enough may be seen in my AfD participation. The discussion is not about me, I know, but I had to say something. So now let's concentrate on discussing the possibility of deletion of this article and not the concerned users. Regards.--Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 17:53, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is just a WP:DICDEF, and is already defined on Wiktionary: wikt:creative work. In any event, entirely WP:OR. TJRC (talk) 19:25, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

DICDEF is not going to apply here because, to begin with, there are plenty of sources discussing the tax implications of creative works. The article has to be evaluated on the basis of what it could become. James500 (talk) 21:50, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why DICDEF does not apply. There's nothing here except a dictionary definition. I see no indication that the term, as a term, meets WP:GNG. TJRC (talk) 21:57, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

DICDEF only applies to an article that cannot be expanded beyond a dictionary definition, not to any article that simply consists of a definition. If you have not found sources that indicate that this term satisfies GNG, it is because you simply have not looked hard enough for them. James500 (talk) 22:20, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have added some material to the article that is not OR. James500 (talk) 22:20, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for that edit, but the source does not describe or define or explain what a "creative work" is, it simply refers to them. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 22:25, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That source does define "creative works". It also prescribes the effect on income tax of fluctuating income from creative works. James500 (talk) 22:36, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just not seeing any evidence of notability for the topic. Yes, it's used in a statute, but that's a WP:PRIMARY source. Is there something that indicates the phrase is notable? For example, in this legal context, are there published law review articles or other WP:SECONDARY sources on the importance of the status of a "creative work" or explaining what qualifies as a creative work? The mere fact that a term is used and defined is not enough to meet WP:GNG. That meets the requirements of a dictionary (hence the dicdef), but not of an encyclopedia, at least, not this one.

If your interest is primarily definitional, your efforts may be better spent on updating the Wiktionary entry. Wiktionary is not a second-class repository to Wikipedia, and there's no shame in a phrase being defined there rather than Wikipedia. TJRC (talk) 22:51, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't you try to actually comply with WP:BEFORE and look for yourself. But here is something that you can find in about five seconds.

You know perfectly well that tax implications are not "definitional". James500 (talk) 23:11, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have that book, so you'll need to do something more than just posting a URL to a web page about it. And you definitely need to work on both WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF. So far in this discussion, all you've done is made unsupported assertions, and accused both of the other editors trying to discuss his with you of not understanding AFD rather than making responsive replies. I'll monitor this discussion, but unless I see an actual substantive response, I don't expect to be persuaded. TJRC (talk) 23:19, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is not a webpage about the book, it is a preview, a scanned copy, of the book that you can read. It links directly to the part of the book that discusses Sch 24 of the Finance Act 2001 in great detail. It is a link to a scanned copy of page 89 of that book on GBooks. And you can read that book yourself and you do not need me to tell you what it says. James500 (talk) 23:39, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe Google books provides different pages based on geo, but in the US, where I am, I see "No eBook available" and a button to "Get Print Book". This might be a good time for you to cut back on those unwarranted assumptions you've been making all day and perhaps provide the support for the claims you've been making, as you've been asked to provide. TJRC (talk) 23:50, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have provided all the support that is necessary. James500 (talk) 23:58, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a book discussing "original and creative work" under the Taxes Consolidation Act 1997. Here is a discussion of that concept under the Code of Federal Regulations of the United States of America. James500 (talk) 00:20, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Another thing to consider is that since "creative work" is a collective term for literary, dramatic, musical and artistic works and designs, this article is the parent article of article of Literature and Art and etc, and must be notable if its WP:SPINOFFS are. (Though here you have the option of showing that it is a fork of a co-terminus article if that is the case, in which case this article would be merged and redirected, but certainly would not be deleted). James500 (talk) 00:32, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:20, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. James500 (talk) 01:55, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. James500 (talk) 01:55, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. James500 (talk) 01:55, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect that this should be included in the deletion sorting lists for film, television, software and video games, as I suspect they are creative works as well. I am not sure what lists designs would go under. James500 (talk) 02:01, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The expression "creative work" produces more than 1000 results in GBooks alone (Google won't let you look at more than 100 pages of results). Even a narrower expression like "original and creative work" produces more than 45 pages of results in GBooks alone. No one can look through all of that. I suspect that people will be tempted to come here and say "I can't determine whether creative works are notable because a large proportion of the massive number of Google results are not helpful because this is such a common expression". The problem with that reasoning is that it would justify the deletion of many obviously notable topics such as, say, buckets or sandcastles. But we don't need Google or GNG to tell us that buckets and sandcastles are notable, because we all know that they are. I hope that we don't need Google and GNG to tell us that creative works are notable. This nomination is basically a proposal to delete, at a minimum, the whole of literature, art, drama, music and industrial design because that is what creative works are. Please don't ask me to provide sources to show that creative works satisfy GNG, because I am really not in a mood to prove the obvious. James500 (talk) 02:29, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are many legal terms listed in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Legal_terms & I don't see why this one should be singled out for deletion rather than the many far more obscure ones. Especially since it is such an important concept. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 14:30, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as an inherently notable legal term. AfD is not meant to rescue obviously notable articles. Bearian (talk) 23:20, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I agree with Bearian. I see its use at the WIPO. There are also many hits at the New York Times, such as [1] and [2]. It looks like this is a notable legal term. With more effort, I could probably locate better and more relevant sources, but it's difficult to imagine how this wouldn't be mind-numbingly boring. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:08, 15 August 2014 (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.