Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Micro job


 * 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 with no prejudice on how it is kept. The votes are kind of all over the place, with Keep but draft, keep, redirect, but the overall vibe seems to be "keep in some form or another". Whether it can be salvaged in main space or draft space is something that can be discussed on the talk page, assumably after some attempt to update for main space. Dennis Brown &#124; 2¢ &#124; WER  18:14, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Micro job

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Poorly sourced essay and non notable neologism Fiddle   Faddle  22:39, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 12:50, 12 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete : This is an essay more than an encyclopic article. Lyndasim (talk) 18:42, 12 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Hi, please help me. I worked hard on this article and don't want it to be deleted.  People need a way to easily find jobs and micro Jobs are a new niche job market, and a legitimate way for people to make money.  Urban dictionary has approved this word for inclusion.


 * The Wallstreet journal:Serfing the Web: Sites Let People Farm Out Their Chores http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052970204443404577052353225234154


 * 40,000 monthly searches on micro jobs accouding to Google.


 * Forbes is writing about micro jobs: Can't get a job?  Get a micro job:  http://www.forbes.com/sites/moneybuilder/2012/07/27/cant-get-a-job-get-a-microjob/


 * This term is relevant in today's society and people are interested in this term. Please let me know how I can improve the article so that it stay on-line.


 * Also, I am a newbie and did not know it was frowned upon to hire someone to edit my article. I promise not to do it again and I will implement all suggestions ASAP.  Please consider helping.  Thanks.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kendeyl (talk • contribs) 23:05, 12 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment The issue with this article is that it was moved from WP:AFC into main article space before it was ready. Now there is a rush to get it ready, something we try to avoid with Articles for Creation. There is a possibility that it can and will turn from an essay into an article, though I am not certain. A valid outcome should be to return it to Draft: space, from where it came, and allow the editor to work on it quietly and unhindered by the emotions of needing to protect an article. Paid editing is not of itself a sin despite our deprecating it, but this article shows what a poor paid editor can achieve when not understanding Wikipedia.
 * a Speedy Close to return this to Draft: would be an acceptable outcome. Since it is now in main article space I thinkl we need consensus to achieve that. Meanwhile I'm doing some work in the article to see if it can be saved in main article space. Fiddle   Faddle  07:18, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
 * NoteI have given the creating editor substantial advice on my talk page after a plea for help, and tided the article a little as well. That advice will head for the archives of that page in a few days. Fiddle   Faddle  08:23, 13 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep but redirect - probably to Microwork. We already have a plethora of articles (see Crowdsourcing) about this subject. There are a large number of different terms and neologisms that seem to pop up. I can't see any evidence that this term is otherwise so notable it must stand as an independent article. Any future discussion about which term is more important/notable/relevant is a task for WP:RM. Bellerophon talk to me  07:44, 13 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Do Not Delete, Send to Drafts -Original author, Kendeyl, needs time to revise in Drafts.Ski02 (talk) 21:22, 13 June 2014 (UTC)ski02
 * Quack much? Bellerophon talk to me  21:35, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment To be fair, what will happen is that WP:REFUND will be invoked and the article will return to Draft:. We may as well save the author the pain of refund, and just do it. But, since it is in main space, that really needs consensus.
 * Do I think there is a snowball's chance in a very hot place that the article will make t to be an article? Well, no, but we have the mechanism to give the author a chance, and he is pleading for the chance on my talk page, so why not? No-one will die if we return it to Draft: namespace, somewhere it never ought to have left in my view, at least in this state. Fiddle   Faddle  22:36, 13 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep It needs further improvement, and I see no reason why this could not be done in main space. There are some references to show notability, and I think the main problem, as says, is  its relationship with similar topics. Given the usual quality of review at afc, I would strongly encourage any editor to do their work in mainspace--the only real purpose of afc at present is as a screen to eliminate the articles which will surely be deleted here.  I This did not bypass afc, nor was it reviewed improperly: it was accepted from afc by, an editor with longer experience than mine whom I greatly respect for their high standards which I think generally more stringent than my own. (I've notified them of this discussion) .  I think I might have passed the article into mainspace myself had I been reviewing it: the standard most of the experienced reviewers use   is a reasonable (perhaps 66%) chance  of passing afd, because unless it's impossible, it's better that there be a group decision--such things as OR can be hard to judge by onesel: obviously the nom. considers it OR, but I & apparently Huon do not.   Now that it's here, the thing to do is to fill it out  with additional sourced material, or merge it as Bellerphon suggests.    DGG ( talk ) 05:11, 14 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Weak keep That page's history is a little complicated. I did not accept the draft. Rather, Lyndasim did a copy-paste "move" of the draft into mainspace, and I merged the page histories so Kendeyl is rightfully credited as the original author. That said, the topic seems notable enough and is distinct from microwork; while the article is in need of improvement, I don't think it's unsalvageably so, and AfD is not cleanup. If Kendeyl and/or Lyndasim are willing to give it an overhaul in Draft space, I wouldn't mind that outcome either. Huon (talk) 11:09, 14 June 2014 (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.