Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Female Servants in 18th Century England


 * 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   Incubate. Moved to Article Incubator/Female Servants in 18th Century England. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:19, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Female Servants in 18th Century England

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Article attempts to research statistics on the number of female servants in England. If necessary, any info should be added to other articles, but if we have separate articles on the statistics of every subgroup, we'll soon have Number of servants named George in England in 1812 and Number of servants that were both read haired and left-handed in 1900-1950 Travelbird (talk) 11:37, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep The subject is notable (apparently hundreds of thousands of people in a variety of occupations), although the time parameter makes no obvious sense. Why not Female domestic servants in England? "Named George..." is totally different since female servants overwhelmingly performed different roles than male servants, and were effectively in a different occupation. I think we should give this stub, created on October 13, a bit more time to evolve, and there are no policy-related reasons to consign it to the Article Incubator. It reads as an WP:ESSAY at the moment, though, which needs to be fixed.--Carwil (talk) 17:58, 19 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Userfy It's a notable subject, although perfecting on it in userspace allows one to research it in one's spare time. What sets female servants in 18th century England apart from those of other centuries is the changes in laws concerning compensation and taxation .  Mandsford 19:35, 19 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment "Female servants" is equivalent to "servants named George," nom? Really? Roscelese (talk) 23:40, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree, it's hard for me to take the nomination seriously when it includes a couple of "What's next, ______?" jokes. They're made every so often in Wikipedia debates, but I can't say that I've ever read one that was actually funny. Mandsford 01:31, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cirt (talk) 00:13, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Comment: Society for the Prevention of Calling Sleeping Car Porters "George", for instance. Rmhermen (talk) 05:53, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Userify I think it's got some potential. Nomination rationale is beyond ridiculous Vodello (talk) 16:25, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Only real information is the number of servants, but they are not even in correspondence with the era of title. 1851 is 19th century, not 18th... The rest reads more like starting sentences from a thesis: "In order to achieve a complete picture of conditions of women in those days, it is necessary that all the significant portions of females in that era be represented" and "In order to understand the significance of learning the situation of bla, bla...." In this state the article doesn't say anything notable about the title. Joost 99 (talk) 19:48, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Incubate While the current article is poorly written, the topic is encyclopedic and sources can be found. The nominator has no valid deletion rationale. Edward321 (talk) 01:15, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep I see no sound reason for deletion. Biscuittin (talk) 20:04, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:INDISCRIMINATE, criteria 3. Article lacks sufficient reliable sourcing to verify the notability of this topic and appears to contradict itself (offering 19th century data to describe an 18th century phenomena). Delete with no prejudice to recreation at some future date. Uncle Dick (talk) 18:46, 3 November 2010 (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.