Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/HCA Red List of Endangered Crafts

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. So I guess this remains part of the Red List of Endangered Articles :-) Sandstein 12:08, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

HCA Red List of Endangered Crafts[edit]

[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)

This is bordering on WP:FRINGE calling crafts/trade endangered in the same way species are. It's got little coverage in terms of the actual topic "List of Endangered Crafts" outside of the few sources included, one of which is an interview, another primary and a passing mention and not much beyond that. Praxidicae (talk) 15:56, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This seems ridiculous as an idea, and more importantly, there's a lack of available RS. Natureium (talk) 16:51, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- The two Guardian sources and the Independent source already in the article are sufficient for it to meet GNG. That nom thinks the idea is "bordering on WP:FRINGE" is neither here nor there. Make a policy-based case for this being a fringe idea if you can, but I don't think you'll be able to. Arguing by assertion isn't relevant. Further, Natureium may think it "seems ridiculous" but again, that's not a reason for deletion. It doesn't seem ridiculous to me at all, but nevertheless I am not asserting that as a reason for keeping. 192.160.216.52 (talk) 18:14, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Assuming the nominator is unfamiliar with heritage crafts in the UK, I have expanded the article with relevant RS citations, none of which are passing mentions (please check), and none of which are fringe publications, mostly the major British broadsheets, The Times, The Daily Telegraph, The Guardian and The Independent and other reliable sources, certainly mainstream and far from a fringe theory as per nom WP:FRINGE. I can assure Natureium that the issue of the disappearance of cultural heritage is far from ridiculous as evidenced by the production of this red list and the seriousness with which it has been subsequently evaluated. Mramoeba (talk) 18:43, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The coverage in the Times, the Guardian and the Independent is fairly in-depth. The Telegraph item is a slide show with less in the captions than I'd like, but it's definitely more than a passing mention and certainly doesn't hurt the case. I don't see how WP:FRINGE applies; they're making an analogy (for, one might argue, marketing purposes), not advancing a conspiracy theory. XOR'easter (talk) 20:09, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I should have called it WP:OR instead of fringe, because that's precisely what this is in combination with total nonsense. Praxidicae (talk) 03:16, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's not Original Research in the Wikipedia sense of that term. It's just research. They didn't make up an idea and try to publicize it on Wikipedia first. They had an idea, did the spade-work, presented their conclusions and got covered in secondary sources. XOR'easter (talk) 16:30, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 20:10, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 20:10, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 20:13, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

comment only. Thanks XOR'easter, The Telegraph often runs a web 'in pictures' alongside its full print article and I used the short one, but in fact the full article is great as it lists the lost crafts in depth. This is the full article so I will amend the page with it. Cheers for noting that. Mramoeba (talk) 20:48, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The only silly thing here is the people who think that concern about dying craft skills is silly. This is the kind of knowledge that has to be learnt in practice from a master. Once it has gone, it's gone. Not a week goes by without some documentary or other trying to reconstruct some ancient skill. Anyway, that's all beside the point. The question here is whether or not the Red Book is notable. Other's have already shown that it is through newspaper articles. For book sources, we have Craft Economies which has a non-trivial discussion, and even Wisden discusses it inasmuch as it impinges on cricket. SpinningSpark 22:08, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this is the dumbest article subject I have ever heard. Gilding, or goldbeating is mentioned in the article as dying off in the UK. I've seen people do this practice elsewhere in the past ten years-- restorers and framers sometimes do it. How do you they thing gilded furniture gets restored? Despite the article claims, you can easily get gold gilding done in the UK. Load of malarkey, in the form of OR. I know this is not a great deletion argument, but why not have an article called list of technologies no longer used in UK, starting with 8-tracks?ThatMontrealIP (talk) 23:25, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No it's not a great deletion argument. Gilding and goldbeating are different things, goldbeating is wikilinked in the article for you to read what it is, and the article doesn't claim anything about gilding which is a different skill. The deletion discussion is not here for whether you find the subject matter 'dumb', or what you have seen, and WP:OR doesn't apply here, as already reasoned above by XOR'easter as the sources are WP:RS and secondary. As for your suggestion of a list of obsolete technologies in the UK you might want to start with any of the history of technology pages and add your suggestion to List of obsolete technology. Mramoeba (talk) 07:21, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure someone in the UK is still pounding some gold flat somewhere. The expanded title of the article at AfD is List of crafts in the UK determined to be extinct by a little-known UK organization. I'll stop there as this article is really not worth discussing.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 13:36, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Well sourced list . A personal view of whether an article subject is dumb is not a basis for deciding inclusion of WP, as I would probably remove half the content and someone of opposite interests to mine would remove the other half. "someone is still pounding gold flat somewhere" -- this is pretty much the definition of endangered. Endangered is not extinct. DGG ( talk ) 21:50, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It might be well-sourced, but it's still a list of trivia by a tiny organization that is currently advertising for a three day a week executive director. One might ask what the point of saying goldbeating is extinct in the UK is, when anyone in the UK can have it shipped overnight it from the following nearby manufacturers, aka goldbeaters:

Delafee of Switzerland,
Gerstendorfer in Germany,
Manetti in Florence, Italy,
Noris-Blattgold in Germany... and so on.

The information we're promoting here from the HCA is just cultural trivia in the age of global commodities. It is funny though. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 05:21, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I just added five sources. I might point out that the claim at the end about Cavendish Pianos being the last manufacturer of pianos in the UK is true, but misleading in context: they were founded in 2012. This obviously opens up the possibility of an article called List of UK crafts undergoing revival. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 05:48, 27 October 2018 (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.