Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Busy work (2nd nomination)

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The result was withdrawn. BD2412 T 21:30, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Busy work

[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)

~~WP:NOTDICTIONARY MrsSnoozyTurtle 01:31, 23 July 2022 (UTC)~~[reply]

Nomination withdrawn. MrsSnoozyTurtle 08:22, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Dream Focus 07:14, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: this article doesn't look like a DICDEF to me, it's a well-defined concept and phenomenon that a lot of sources talk about. Am I missing something? jp×g 18:11, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, clearly not a dictionary definition. SailingInABathTub (talk) 01:24, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a legitimate article, there references found in the previous AFD and in the article now proving it gets coverage. A complete article not just a definition. Dream Focus 02:16, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep not a dictionary definition, it has content beyond a definition of the subject. At this point if someone wants to argue this is a dictionary defintion they should be putting forward an argument rather than just saying so. Hut 8.5 19:01, 24 July 2022 (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.