Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Women in the Workforce

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 merge to Women in the workforce. Selectively, or not at all if there's nothing from this article that isn't already at the target. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:24, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Women in the Workforce[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 a duplicate of Women in the workforce (note different capitalization). Possibility for a selective merger, but the existing article is already pretty developed. I don't think there is much here worth merging. BenKuykendall (talk) 15:19, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Since we already have an article on this notable topic (an article that has flaws of its own), it is worth rescuing the references and possibly other material here. The article was created by a new editor, a student, and it will be great if his/her energy and enthusiasm gets preserved while learning more about Wikipedia policies. HouseOfChange (talk) 15:34, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. BenKuykendall (talk) 15:19, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. BenKuykendall (talk) 15:19, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. BenKuykendall (talk) 15:19, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy redirect to alt capitalization. This fork(?) was created in March 2021. No need for AfD. pburka (talk) 15:35, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Redirect to alt. This page is blatantly redundant to the point of nonsensicality and I have no idea what the reasoning behind it could’ve possibly been. Dronebogus (talk) 18:52, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- EDIT: oh, wait, it was a student editor who I guess thought they needed to use Wikipedia as an essay-hosting service. Dronebogus (talk) 18:56, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge My impression is that the student editor was working on an assignment. Their plan seems to have been to add to the existing article but they worked on a userspace draft and then coulnd't figure out how to merge their additional content. Anyway, WP:BITE and WP:PRESERVE apply and so we should merge so that the edit history remains visible to all. Andrew🐉(talk) 21:04, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- wouldn’t turning this into a redirect preserve the history as well? In my experience requests to merge take forever and this obviously should not be in the mainspace. Dronebogus (talk) 08:19, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Not necessarily. The current page might be deleted and then a redirect created. This would be disruptive as the student would then not be able to see and discuss their work with their course leaders. Andrew🐉(talk) 18:30, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. Anything that is worth merging into the main Women in the workforce article should be merged, but my impression is that that will extend to a couple of the statistics and individual refs, since the tone is very much that of a student essay. Furius (talk) 18:26, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, possibly with some information from the redundant article if it is encyclopedic. This seems to be part of a larger project of studies writing on equality & related topics: project's homepage.AnandaBliss (talk) 21:47, 16 April 2021 (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.