Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Working parents


 * 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   no consensus. Stifle (talk) 11:01, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Working parents

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Non encyclopedic POV essay Wuh  Wuz  Dat  16:57, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Delete A piece of original research combined with dubious synthesis that reads like a high school student's sociology essay (and not a very good one at that). Emeraude (talk) 17:16, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. Yep, it's a personal essay. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:18, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. There's obviously more to do, but I think we have enough of a start to keep it now. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:19, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep A Google search (supplemented by common sense) shows that this is a notable topic discussed in depth in numerous reliable sources for decades. Shortcomings in this article by a brand new user should be addressed by normal editing rather than deletion. Cullen328 (talk) 17:29, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment, The Topic is not up for deletion, this article is. Wuh  Wuz  Dat  17:34, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Reply The article can be improved by normal editing, which is always preferable to deletion when dealing with a clearly notable topic. I have greeted and encouraged the new user.  That's better, in my view, than the bite of an AfD on the user's first effort.Cullen328 (talk) 17:40, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The topic is indeed up for deletion. If the article has problems, it can be worked with.  AFD determines if a topic is notable enough to have an article on it.   D r e a m Focus  10:11, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I think this is the prime misunderstanding that many inclusionists have. AfD is not "Topics for deletion".  It is "Articles for deletion".  If there is an article out there on Michael Jackson and its content consists solely of "I hate Michael Jackson, he's stupid.", then that article should be deleted, even if its topic could potentially have a good article written about it.  There's no reason that Wikipedia needs to have terrible articles remain for years (and by terrible, I mean articles that would require a 100% rewrite to have any chance of being a useful article, not articles that just need a little work).  If you want to improve the article, then that's great, but if you just want to vote to keep it around and then leave it in its current state, then that's not a viable solution to the problem.  Snotty Wong   gab 18:32, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * We have the speedy deletion process for articles which are obviously too flawed and that should be used for the "I hate Michael Jackson, he's stupid." type of article &mdash; G10 or A7.  The problem with the article before us is a failure to follow the process detailed at WP:BEFORE.  This tells us:
 * If the page can be improved, this should be solved through regular editing.
 * Stubs and imperfect articles are awaiting further development, and so the potential of the topic should be considered.
 * ...make a good-faith attempt to confirm that such sources don't exist.
 * If the article was recently created, please consider that many good articles started their Wikilife in pretty bad shape. Unless it is obviously a hopeless case ...
 * If the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a good candidate for AfD.
 * These and other policies such as WP:IMPERFECT repeatedly state that we should be tolerant of such poor work and try to fix articles rather than deleting them. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:06, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Your point about WP:BEFORE remains, but I just want to point out that our CSD criteria do not cover all cases of "obviously too flawed" articles. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 19:19, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Like I said, there's a big difference between an article that is imperfect and needs some help, and an article where the only solution is to rewrite from scratch and ditch 100% of the content that is currently in the article. One of these is covered by WP:IMPERFECT, the other is not (and is not necessarily covered by any CSD criteria in all cases).  On an article where the only solution is to rewrite from scratch, WP:BEFORE doesn't require anyone to rewrite it from scratch instead of nominating it for deletion.  It's not anyone's responsibility except the creator of the article (or anyone else with a strong desire to see the article remain on WP).  WP:Delete the junk is a popular essay which expresses this sentiment.  Snotty Wong   express 20:48, 2 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep We are discussing the topic. It is a notable topic. Title should probably be "Working parent." Kitfoxxe (talk) 18:01, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * KEEP It's an important topic and is referenced and supported with research. It's not a personal essay, and is certainly not boring!  It's a great point of departure for others to continue editing.  Three votes for keep.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chickpea.mama (talk • contribs) 18:41, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete A valid topic, but there's nothing in here worth keeping. If a valid article be written in its place, the new article should have absolutely nothing from the current version, so there's no benefit to having the current text remain available.  Nyttend (talk) 19:42, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:02, 30 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete per Nyttend. None of the material here can be used to "seed" a good version. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 21:50, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment I appreciate that we have a new contributor who is not familiar with how to write in the encyclopedic style. I'm afraid that those who are saying "keep", simply because it seems like a dynamite idea for an article, aren't doing the article's creator any favors.  Nominating it for deletion, is far kinder than rewriting this beyond recognition without debate.  To some extent, this issue is covered in latchkey kid, so no great loss if this is deleted.  Not surprisingly, this has been dealt with before with Articles for deletion/Working moms and Articles for deletion/Working mums, and the problem has been an inability to write about this as if one was contributing to the World Book Encyclopedia rather than to Parents (magazine).  We have a vague article with the bizarre, "WTF?" title of double burden, and it's just as bad as this one.  Until someone can write a good article about the topic, I say create working parent as a redirect to latchkey kid.  There's nothing here that needs to be preserved in the event it's redirected.  Mandsford 22:05, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The article latchkey kid is obviously about the children but this article is about the parents in such a situation. These are not the same topic.


 * Keep It is easy to improve the article and it is our explicit policy to do so, given the notability of the topic. I have added a book devoted to the topic as a source and there are many more for us to summarise. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:21, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete This reads like a personal essay or school report, not a Wikipedia article. Besides that, the term "working parents" is pretty self-explanatory, and discussing its role in society or the world can only be based on opinion and thesis.  I can argue that all parents are working parents.  Thus, if the points can be argued, it's opinion, not fact. -- Cactusjump (talk) 21:40, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Addl Comment Looking at the article again, the title is actually misleading, as the article discusses stay-at-home parents, not working parents as defined in the introduction. -- Cactusjump (talk) 21:44, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * That is odd. This is about stay at home parents, but then an editor added in a bit about working parents.  Either one will appear in numerous books and news articles, so it isn't a problem.   D r e a m Focus  10:11, 2 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Rewrite The topic is clearly notable. Click Google Books search at the top of the AFD, and you see books written about this, with the term "working parents" in their title even.  But as the article currently is, is basically crap.  It'd need to be rewritten.  Also, is it about "working parents" or "stay at home parents"?   D r e a m Focus  10:25, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment I'm not sure I've grasped the concept of a "notable topic". I understand the Wikipedia policies on notable people, notable companies, notable places, notable books etc - these are all concrete, tangible things. But a notable topic? And even if the concept of a notable topic is a valid one, "Working Parents" makes a great title/topic for a sociological journal article or book but not necessarily an encyclopaedia article. Emeraude (talk) 11:07, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Notability is not restricted to people, places or other narrow categories. The nutshell for the guideline says "Wikipedia covers notable topics—those that have been "noticed" to a significant degree by independent sources. A topic is deemed appropriate for inclusion as a standalone article if it complies with WP:NOT and has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources.".  WP:NOT does not forbid articles about sociology and so we're good.  Note also that the essence of a general encyclopedia is that it covers all topics - the full cycle of knowledge.  Colonel Warden (talk) 12:38, 2 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep Colonel Warden has taken the time to make a substantial rewrite of the article on 1 February, all for the better. I think that it's pretty well agreed that the topic is notable, and that it really hasn't been covered elsewhere on Wikipedia.  In that the initial objections have been taken care of, I hope that persons who originally favored deletion will judge the page by the improvements.  I commend Warden for taking the initiative on this one.   Mandsford 13:40, 2 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Note: The article under discussion here has been rescue flagged by an editor for review by the Article Rescue Squadron.  Snotty Wong   confabulate 18:38, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete - Colonel Warden has been kind enough to rewrite the entire article from scratch, rendering all of the discussion above as completely useless (since the discussion was about a completely different article). However, CW's version is now essentially a one-sentence dictionary definition of what a working parent is, followed by a much more substantive dictionary definition of maternity and paternity leave (which, of course, is already covered at Parental leave).  Somehow I don't think we're any better off.  I think this article is best deleted and re-created when someone has the time to actually create a real article that discusses the significance of working parents with respect to the impact on their children, etc.  Snotty Wong   confabulate 18:38, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete in agreement with above comment, I am voting again for deletion with the article as it has been re-edited. The article is now even more insignificant, since it is simply a dictionary definition. - Cactusjump (talk) 20:25, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I added something. The cultural aspects of this, and how societies have changed because of both parents working, is well documented in thousands of books.  I added in a bit to make it more than just a definition.  Get things started.   D r e a m Focus  21:17, 2 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep, the concept of a working parent has significantly changed over time from the industrial age to the nuclear family to present. The title probably should not be plural, "Working parent" instead. The notable usage of the phrase itself should note why the phrase was employed as historically it was simply understood a family was led by a man who worked and he had a wife and children who stayed at home. America helped change all that as people could step out of their caste and go for the American Dream.71.139.13.248 (talk) 01:11, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete: WP:DICTDEF + a few random (and rather tangential) facts ≠ encyclopaedic article. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 10:49, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Rome wasn't built in a day, and Colonel W and Dream Focus, like the rest of us, do this in the limited amount of spare time at their disposal. Unless the topic is so ridiculous that no amount of work would make a worthwhile article, fixing is always encouraged.  It's not just a gripe with the "don't bother trying, delete" attitude; I have no use for the inclusionist equivalent of "keep- someone, but not I, will fix it".  I disagree a lot with Colonel Warden, but I respect him for practicing what he preaches.    Where something is going in the right direction, I say let it keep going.  Mandsford 15:34, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * But then Rome won't be built by giving it a name and throwing a few random rocks around -- it needs a solid systematic foundation (hence "sources address the subject directly in detail") -- which is what is lacking here. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 16:12, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * And one problem with reflexively 'rescuing' DICTDEFs is that they actually often make for bad article titles (generally because they are colloquialisms and/or overly-specific instantiations of wider phenomena), and mis-focused articles. In this case, the more encyclopaedic topic would probably be Employment and parenting (or possibly Employment and families), with a lead sentence of something like:


 * HrafnTalkStalk(P) 16:38, 3 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment: I can still argue that all parents are working parents, and that this definition is inaccurate. Parents who are the main child-care providers (a.k.a. "stay at home" parents) also work (housework, transportation, organization of meals, etc.) and can therefore also be called "working parents."  You could speculate that only parents who have withheld all responsibilities in the child's life (ie. "deadbeat parents") are not "working parents."  It's an arguable phrase and can not be based on facts.  - Cactusjump (talk) 22:51, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete A few random facts and a definition masquerading as an article.--Yaksar (let's chat) 04:02, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Weak keep viable topic, current article sucks somewhat less than a blank page. --WTFITS (talk) 05:46, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. A common term, I'm surprised that a comprehensive article isn't on the page. The refs demonstrate notability so I can't see the article getting deleted. Perhaps the problem is that it isn't a common term in the US. In the UK its two a penny references in news, book, frankly everywhere, hohum. Szzuk (talk) 21:16, 7 February 2011 (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.