Talk:Childminder

This article should not redirect to nanny
The other day I noticed that searching for "childminder" redirected to Nanny, which article conflated the two occupations and was too long and uneven in quality. The two terms describe jobs as distinct as zookeeper and farmer, or supermarket teller and arabber; one is self-employed and subject to extensive regulation; the other is an employed domestic worker without any such restrictions. (Here's a long list discussing the differences.) I stripped out the info from Nanny pertaining to childminding and inserted it into Childminder, removing the redirect. I then attempted a little tidying up. Today I see that the material has been deleted, and Childminder is now simply a redirect again. So - two issues here.

One: the material that has now vanished. It wasn't fantastically written, but it was largely factual and based on government sources re regulations etc. It deserves to remain on the encyclopedia (possibly on a talk page) so it can be improved on.

Two: the redirect itself. It is factually inaccurate to conflate nannies and childminders. There need to be two separate articles.

Suggestions for a way forward? Carbon Caryatid (talk) 11:58, 28 October 2017 (UTC)


 * First of all, the sources for "Childminder" are not acceptable for indicating the notability of the topic. Please see WP:N, WP:GNG, WP:ORGIN, WP:CORPDEPTH, and WP:ORGIND. In fact, the sources are awful because they link to commercial websites engaged in child care. Wikipedia is not a platform for promotion, please see WP:PROMO.
 * As things stand, the content is better placed in the Nanny article, but not most of the sources. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 20:39, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Also, the article is not too long with this material restored. There are articles much longer than this.
 * However, I am guessing most of the sources for this section should be removed per WP:PROMO ---Steve Quinn (talk) 20:53, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Perhaps, on second thought, the sources are OK in the Nanny article because they are primary sources verifying the material in an article whose topic has presumably already demonstrated notability - and that would be Nanny. However, these sources are not adequate for a stand alone article on Wikipedia. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 21:13, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

If that text about childminders deserves to be in Wikipédia in first place, it's only convenience that will determine if the text stays in the article "nanny" or in a article of its own, or perhaps, for example, in the article Child care in the United Kingdom. I reccomend a small mention in the article "nanny", and the rest of text be put in the article about childcare in the UK. Or a article of its own... 2001:12D0:8020:A000:0:0:0:28A (talk) 00:07, 2 November 2017 (UTC)