Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Workplace relationships

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 Keep. bd2412 T 01:07, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Workplace relationships

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

This page is just an aimless discursive essay Amisom (talk) 10:24, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I can't make out any encyclopedic discussion of the topic. LaundryPizza03 (talk) 10:34, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:40, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:40, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep encyclopediac, and well referenced and not an essay or unencyclopediac, a basic element in understanding why and how organised labour and management systems either exploit or enhance such relationships. JarrahTree 23:46, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Just because it's well referenced doesn't mean it's not an essay (eg this). But phrases like, "Workplace relationships directly affect a worker's ability and drive to succeed", "Unfortunately, conflicts can arise due to the lack of, or the absence of, common goals for the business" etc make clear that this article constitutes the author's opinion on a general theme. It is not a notable, encyclopedic topic. Amisom (talk) 08:54, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
sorry but there is a whole category tree relative to workplace issues - and this is a fundamental part of the template and category: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Workplace, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Aspects_of_workplaces --JarrahTree 10:09, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Luckily we can edit that template and that category to remove it then. WP:SURMOUNTABLE. Amisom (talk) 10:14, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry again - AFD discussions go beyond 2 editors having a conversation... JarrahTree 10:33, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what that means. Amisom (talk) 10:36, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OK, lets try - PROD's work when either the original editor, or a substantial adder to an article - have the article on their watch list. The starter of the article stopped editing in 2011, and despite a whole range of editors doing things to the article - viz - https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Workplace_relationships&action=history I would suggest that editors on that list who have edited in the more recent years might be interested, but they might not have it on their watch list...
AFD's work when more than two editors have a conversation about the merits of an article against the AFD criterion - never a 2 person job, or 3 - the more the merrier for more a wider point of view.
Your prod was reverted - I can see some eminent high edit editors in the history list - I'd be patient, they may turn up... not counting chickens too quickly is always a good measure. If your arguments hold water they can float for a while, I am sure JarrahTree
Yeah, I don't really know what you're talking about but this AfD has seven days to run so why don't you just chill and see what happens. Amisom (talk) 10:49, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
OK,if that is your response, are you really sure you should be venturing into AFD territory? JarrahTree 11:36, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes.. Amisom (talk) 11:37, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Massive notability. AFD is not cleanup. Andrew D. (talk) 16:40, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think WP:ITSNOTABLE is a helpful argment? Amisom (talk) 22:51, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Passes WP:GNG per a review of available sources. More sources are available in addition to those posted in my comment. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:09, 21 January 2018 (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.