Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stepped profile

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 no consensus. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 23:15, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Stepped profile

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Unsourced since 2006, and a vague descriptor/definition rather than actual topic. What's most concerning is the list of articles that point to this one are using the term in a generic way that invalidates the topic: [[1]]. "Stepped profile" describes rivers: none of the incoming wikilinks describe an aquatic body, but mountains or architecture with step-looking motif. This convolutes the possibility of a redirect. Likewise, the term brings up hits in other related fields (math, engineering) and sort of reinforces it as a generic description. It's not that it's a 'bad' topic, it's that it's a tangled mess that needs TNT. I welcome any other constructive fixes. Estheim (talk) 08:53, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As was brought up at the geology portal discussion, "stepped profile" appears to be as generic as "cherry red" and is more appropriate for Wiktionary. --Kent G. Budge (talk) 14:03, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also known as Cerise. SailingInABathTub (talk) 21:49, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per WP:HEY, and the revised article. SailingInABathTub (talk) 16:19, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As noted over at the geology portal discussion, I am pro an outright deletion. The text as written is poor and in places wrong, and as was pointed out at the talk page, the term is completely generic and the geomorphic use should not be privileged over others. Material is adequately and better covered in knickpoint, making this a fork. DanHobley (talk) 13:57, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete SailingInABathTub's revised article still violates Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary. It also changes the topic of the article sufficiently that it makes the AfD no longer valid. Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:43, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a dictionary definition. The article begins with a definition as it is supposed to and then goes on to describe how a stepped profile is used in architecture, construction, engineering, and geology. The revision also expands on the original article (the encyclopaedic part about rivers is still there) to take into account the nominators concerns about the other applications of this concept. SailingInABathTub (talk) 17:45, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:21, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:21, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, scholar search yields >3K results, surely stepped profile is notable consept. Argument could be made for merging it with another article or deleting it per OR (but I do not think this is the case) Cinadon36 07:31, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep seems at least marginally notable across disciplines, appears to have been discussed in engineering journals such as [2]. SportingFlyer T·C 12:23, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment What an odd mishmash of largely unrelated concepts. I don't think this counts as HEY, quite the opposite — at least the original stub was clear in what its subject was. If any of this is to be kept (and I'm not sure it should), the contents should IMO be split into clearly-delineated topics, eg. architecture, geo-/hydrology, etc.; that would also make it easier to judge notability. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:18, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - A simple generic concept that covers many disciplines - better covered by wiktionary. Mikenorton (talk) 10:02, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per SportingFlyer.4meter4 (talk) 16:21, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 20:05, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:DICDEF. None of the examples given have any connection other than their basic shape, there's no indication that the term has a specific technical meaning in any field, and it seems unlikely that this could be expanded into a useful article. Tevildo (talk) 12:01, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY. Good teamwork, folks. Bearian (talk) 18:05, 25 June 2021 (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.