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. (non-admin closure) CTJF83 chat 05:19, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Job description

[edit]

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

Long-unreferenced jargon-filled magnet for all sorts of useless edits. Doesn't seem likely to be a full article itself (just dictdef and pile of OR and blog links?), except as a fork or component of some other employment, hiring, or want-ad-related article. DMacks (talk) 17:43, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a fundamental principle in personnel management. The article needs references but is actually, in my opinion, a decent first draft of a useful article. Cullen328 (talk) 19:27, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note A couple minutes on Google Books shows at least five books solely devoted to job descriptions plus dozens of others that delve into the subject in depth. Cullen328 (talk) 19:38, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Marcus Qwertyus 23:58, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Cullen328. I'm seeing quite a few sources that discuss this specific topic, in detail. Some cleanup may be necessary, but that is not a deletion function. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 14:47, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Current state of the article borders on worthless, but there are volumes of information to build an article from. Entire books and journal articles targeted for human resources and management employees discuss job descriptions in various manners. This article even approaches job descriptions (and job markets) in mathematical terms. Serpent's Choice (talk) 18:47, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: the kernel of AFD is not "does this topic suffice for someone possibly to write something about it?" but "does this article meet guidelines and policies?". I hereby invite someone to rewrite, or even brutalize down to a stub, with a smattering of key cites (I know nothing about the topic, and my quick googling found lots of job-hunting blogs and lots of materials whose reliability in the field I cannot judge), and I would happily withdraw the nom. DMacks (talk) 19:57, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Let me see what I can do. I'm ref-hunting for some more obscure stuff, but this is an easy target that I should be able to rewrite well before the AFD window closes. Serpent's Choice (talk) 19:59, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ATD says "If the page can be improved, this should be solved through regular editing, rather than deletion". It goes on to suggest various tags that could be used to encourage content improvement. I doubt that taking it to AfD is the most appropriate way to invite other users to improve an article. Nonetheless, I've done a little work and added a couple of refs... bobrayner (talk) 02:13, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I don't doubt that the current content is a bit flaky or that it may attract useless edits, but in principle I think "Job Description" is a significant concept which deserves exploration in an encyclopaedia. It can't be too hard to find content from reliable sources. As an example, the first book I found on my shelf is [1] and the index says that Job Description is on pages 47-8, 194, 205-208, 214, 223, and 519-520, so I doubt there's a shortage of material to work with..! Will try to make some updates... bobrayner (talk) 19:38, 25 October 2010 (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.