Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Workplace strategy
Tools
Actions
General
Print/export
In other projects
Appearance
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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 no consensus. Jayjg (talk) 01:54, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Workplace strategy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Essay, dictionary definition, not an encyclopedia article. Woogee (talk) 21:25, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak delete per WP:NOTBLOG, despite being well-written. Erpert (let's talk about it) 06:28, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep for the reason that there is something to say about "workplace strategy," but this approach is not the right one. Someone who knows something about the subject should rewrite it based on the sources in the references section as well as other sources such as those in the Google books list, with shorter paragraphs and more breakheads, and then it will be a fine article. Yoninah (talk) 20:52, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - certainly not a dictionary definition. This is a fully encyclopedic topic and there are masses of sources that can be used to expand the page. Of course, it was written as an essay. However, that is something that can be fixed by editing. When we have a sensible, sourceable topic, the development of the encyclopedia is better served by rewriting than by throwing hands up in horror and deleting. I have now added some structure to the page to make it less essay-like. Bridgeplayer (talk) 22:14, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The nomination is incoherent as essay and dicdef are contradictory criticisms. The topic is notable and so should be developed further in accordance with our editing policy. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:51, 20 March 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.