Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Factory life during the industrial revolution


 * 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. John254 23:42, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Factory life during the industrial revolution

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Original research essay on unencyclopedic topic, with orphaned article. Daniel (talk) 06:04, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep I don't think we should be deleting articles on notable subjects that merely need a good copy-edit and a couple of extra sources added! -- Ļıßζېấשּׂ~ۘ Ώƒ ﻚĢęخ (talk) 06:11, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
 * My argument is that the topic is unencyclopedic and the current version (and all prior versions) violate core policy, not that it lacks a "good copy-edit and a couple of extra sources". Daniel (talk) 06:19, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, as I said, my argument is that the topic isn't necessarily unencyclopedic, and that it only really needs a good hack n' slash along with good references to bring it up to scratch. There are many, many academic sources on the subject and I don't think we should just chuck it out the window because it has content issues. -- Ļıßζېấשּׂ~ۘ  Ώƒ ﻚĢęخ (talk) 06:25, 17 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment: Per WP:UNENCYCLOPEDIC, being unencyclopedic by itself is not a reason to delete and I don't see it so much as an issue of OR as much as an issue of lack of sources, which is a cleanup issue. Can you clarify your reason for wanting to delete it? Redfarmer (talk) 07:26, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep just needs clean up and sourcing. Ridernyc (talk) 07:35, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment this topic is worth an article, but the current article is so awful it needs to be re-written from scratch and deletion might be warranted to get rid of it. The experiances of workers in Industrial Revolution-era factories weren't uniformly terrible as the article seems to assert and conditions were different in different places and at different times so it is also hopelessly simplistic. This article would get an F if it was submitted by a high school student as it doesn't even begin to adequetely cover the topic. --Nick Dowling (talk) 09:29, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
 * 99.9% of the articles on wikipedia would get an F. Ridernyc (talk) 09:35, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think that things are that bad. --Nick Dowling (talk) 10:49, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Click on random article 30 times and see how many articles you get that have 0 references. I just checked 20 random articles 15 of them had either no sources or unreliable sources. If I had to give grades I would say 17 of them would get a D or F. If we go by the standards set by this nomination I would nominate the majority of articles I see. By the way I do the random article thing regularly to see the current state of the project, it can be really depressing. Ridernyc (talk) 11:07, 17 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep I agree with Ridernyc. The only valid ground I could see for a deletion is if one can find another article that covers this ground already.  The author started with a source, a step in the right direction, and the topic of work conditions in 19th century America is certainly notable.  "So awful it needs to be re-written from scratch" is a bit of an exaggeration... somehow, I don't think the editor who wrote that has plans to rewrite this article from scratch. Mandsford (talk) 15:34, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep What's wrong with an article discussing factory life during the Industrial Revolution? As a history major, I've read a good deal on this subject; surely it passes the notability test.  I don't see how it could not be considered notable, let alone a failure to pass other standards (such as NPOV) required to be an article.  Nyttend (talk) 06:35, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * keep and improve. A notable subject in history and an encyclopedia. Hmains (talk) 18:46, 19 January 2008 (UTC)


 * 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.