Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zax (tool)

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The result was Nomination withdrawn. No delete vote. PeaceNT 11:12, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Zax (tool)

Zax (tool) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

obscure, non notable hand tool; there is already a Wiktionary entry. Brianyoumans 01:03, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

• zax is a dictionary article that tells us about the word. zax (tool) is an encyclopaedia article that tells us about the tool. Should an encyclopaedia discuss such a tool? The New American Cyclopaedia: a popular dictionary of general knowledge, written in 1862 (George Ripley and Charles Anderson Dana; New York: D. Appleton and Company), seems to think that an encyclopaedia should discuss such a tool, documenting the zax as it does on page 695, in the entry for SLATE. Moreover, for a picture of a zax, see figure 232 on page 117 of ISBN 1850320160. That discusses the zax along with several other slater's tools, such as the "ripper" and the "lath hammer". Wikipedia should probably discuss the zax in context with these other slater's tools, too. But since we don't even have an entry for the trade of slater yet, let alone an article on the tools of that trade, there's no article to merge this one into, and certainly no reason to throw the content of this article away. Keep. Uncle G 01:38, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
  • In 1862, these were probably in almost as common use as hammers. Now, they are obscure collectors' items. The tool might have an interesting history, I suppose, but none of that is in this article. I think this will be a dusty stub for a very long time if kept. Brianyoumans 03:00, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per Uncle G. A good merge candidate in the future, but fine as its own article for now, and certainly not a mere dictionary definition. —Celithemis 01:40, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per Uncle G. Legitimate article. THE KING 02:50, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
• Merge with Slate. One of several tools for manipulating slate, I could see an article eventually linked from Slate. If enough accumulate, mine the information and split off. Until then, it will not be too much of a burden to Slate. I have seen at least one good external article about slate mining (unbelievable-aint-it) and they didn't have good descriptions of the tools (though one description of a fellow splitting a 1/8" thick 12 foot long section!) Shenme 03:12, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Per Uncle G it appears to be a legitimate article to have in an encyclopedia, and it is my view that its very obscurity (which does not equal non-notability) makes it the ideal type of article to have in our encyclopedia. Dusty stubs aren't any less useful to some for being dusty, and I don't think we should make anyone looking for information about this tool wade through the whole article on Slate, although a link from there might be a useful touch, for readers who are already reading that article. —Carolfrog 05:20, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per Uncle G. Not just a dicdef. Sr13 (T|C) 08:15, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
• Nomination withdrawn I can see where this is headed, and it is nowhere good. I hadn't tried something like this before, and it seems I shouldn't try it again. --Brianyoumans 08:28, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

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.