Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stewardship

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 speedy keep. Per WP:SK#1, the nominator has withdrawn their nomination without dissent. (non-admin closure) Michaelzeng7 (talk) 16:48, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Stewardship[edit]

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

The word is a generic term, which acquired a neologistic meaning recently. The article Stewardship is basically a dicdef, mostly for the word steward, and the list of various buzzwords, such as environmental stewardship, etc. The subject is perfectly covered by the disambiguation page, similar to Guidance, Directorship, etc. To this end I requested page move at Talk:Stewardship (disambiguation). Staszek Lem (talk) 01:22, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The disambiguation page is itself borderline WP:DABCONCEPT, because none of the terms is just the word, "stewardship", but instead all of them are obviously types of stewardship, which is a clearly discernible concept of responsible planning and preservation of resources, generally with the idea that a third party will receive a future benefit from this activity. It is, of course, difficult to write articles on broad concepts that are applicable across many different fields. Nevertheless, it is our duty as an encyclopedia to write these articles and convey broad concepts to the best of our ability. bd2412 T 02:53, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: As to the "neologistic meaning", see National Research Council Committee on Antarctic Policy and Science, Science and Stewardship in the Antarctic (1993), p. 78: "[The Environmental Protocol will impose on antarctic science and scientists an additional key role: a far greater degree of environmental responsibility toward the continent and its ecology. This added stewardship role, while challenging, also offers new benefits both to the science and to the environment. In addition, the new stewardship role and the Protocol imply that the link between science and policy will broaden, so that formulating effective policy on environmental issues will require greater ties between scientists and policymakers]". At least twenty years of use is time enough to say that it is no longer a neologism for encyclopedic purposes. bd2412 T 03:01, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The topic is very notable as numerous books have been written about it such as Stewardship. And FWIW, in patrolling AFD, I consider myself to be a steward of our material, which should not be so casually destroyed. Warden (talk) 12:28, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Important concept in environmental ethics. Article is just beginning, but valuable addition to Wikipedia. Regards, DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 13:13, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Rlsheehan (talk) 15:12, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nomination withdrawn after reading and understanding WP:DABCONCEPT, thanks to User:BD2412. Staszek Lem (talk) 16:30, 17 July 2013 (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.