Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pension reform in Pennsylvania (2nd nomination)


 * 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 moved to Draft:Pension reform in Pennsylvania; I have also locked the mainspace title for a month to cool off future efforts to revisit this. bd2412 T 16:03, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Pension reform in Pennsylvania
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

School project poorly sourced, with original research, was supposed to be worked on in draft format when it was discussed at WP:AFD Theroadislong (talk) 19:24, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment following the last AFD, the previous attempt was moved to Draft:Pension reform in Pennsylvania, where it's remained untouched ever since. This one is a new article by another student in the same university class, and following proposed deletion by User:ToThAc, was moved to User:Jay.Darbs/Pension reform in Pennsylvania (and de-prodded) on April 11 by User:Shalor (Wiki Ed) as not ready for main space. And there it also sat untouched, till a few hours ago, when the article creator pasted it right back here unchanged. I'm guessing a project deadline is looming. So I'm going to request a history merge from the userfied version: perhaps it can be userfied again, or moved to draft, if there's consensus for that here. The Mighty Glen (talk) 02:20, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Happy for it be returned to draft it certainly isn't anywhere near ready for article space. Theroadislong (talk) 16:45, 24 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions.  MT Train Talk 03:00, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions.  MT Train Talk 03:00, 24 April 2018 (UTC)


 * I have performed the history-merge. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:06, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete - In its current form, this fails NOR and V and is not encyclopedic in tone. If the author is interested in developing the article further, returning to draft space would be fine. But The Mighty Glen's guess about a project deadline implies that the article might be abandoned, so without a statement of interest in development, I don't think userfication or draftification is useful. Smmurphy(Talk) 19:51, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete and move to draft (again). I don't want to speculate about the motives behind the editors on this ((WP:AGF and all)) but otherwise agree this article is not ready to be out of draft space. As part of NPP I have stumbled across some others on parallel topics from this class and are currently going through them. It's possible for an encyclopedia article to be made on this topic, this just isn't it. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:04, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Move to draft. This is a notable topic, the sources are there, it just needs a LOT of work at this point. ~ EDDY  ( talk / contribs ) ~ 19:16, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Move to draft. I would want to have it kept, but a topic like that should have more references first. It has a lot of content, and I also don't think it is necessary to delete what probably took the editor hours to write-up. Moving it to draft space would give the editor the ability to edit the article further. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 08:38, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Move to draft space, with the hope that creator will build the article. If he does, he will earn out thanks for doing the hard work necessary to create a solid article on a significant political topic.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:10, 30 April 2018 (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.