Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Time allocation (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 redirect to Time management. No consensus to keep the article as-is. Redirecting without deleting to permit either a merge to "time management" or a rewrite at a later time. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 15:18, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Time allocation

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

WP:NOTTEXTBOOK from top to bottom, requires complete rewrite from different sources even if the topic is notable. Ivan Pozdeev (talk) 17:23, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The topic is notable and improving it per our editing policy is done by ordinary editing, not deletion. AFD is not cleanup. Andrew D. (talk) 22:50, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just because a topic is notable, doesn't mean we need an article on it, especially when already covered in other articles as is the case here.--Pontificalibus (talk) 09:55, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If the topic is covered elsewhere then this would further demonstrate the notability of the topic and per WP:PRESERVE we would want to consider alternatives to deletion such as merger. In this case though, the topics are somewhat different. Time management is mainly concerned with efficiency while time allocation is more about priorities. Entire books are written about the way in which people choose to allocate their time -- for example, see Bargaining over Time Allocation:] which demonstrates that this is a substantial topic for which we need more than one page. Andrew D. (talk) 13:06, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would say time allocation is a part of time management, unless sources say otherwise? The sources I found (e.g. 1) support this. So I think it belongs in the time management article until a WP:SIZESPLIT is called for.--Pontificalibus (talk) 15:44, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:30, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:TNT - this is a badly written fork of time management. Bearian (talk) 23:21, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSandDoctor (talk) 06:50, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Time management covers this topic. --Pontificalibus (talk) 09:54, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, there's more to it - see above. Andrew D. (talk) 13:06, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but not adverse to TNT as the article has very little of what an encyclopedia article on "Time Allocation" should have in it. In short this article is awful, but a viable topic. Α Guy into Bοοks™ § (Message) - 14:18, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
redirect to time management which is the name everyone else uses. Mangoe (talk) 12:57, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to time management, which seems to be an appropriate (and better written) target. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 23:37, 17 September 2017 (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.