Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Workaholic

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 by consensus as having sufficient reliable sources and notable content, having been improved significantly. Bearian 00:25, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Workaholic

Completely unreferenced for more than six months. Mikeblas 10:29, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki to wiktionary. There is already an entry, and it's a def which is served best from there. Yngvarr (t) (c) 10:40, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Question. I don't get it; why move unreferenced material? Does Wictionary not follow WP:V ? -- Mikeblas 15:38, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment See meta:Eventualism. I believe there is no harm in following common sense about material we know could be sourced. In fact, why not take the time to source it now, instead of arguing that it's unsourced? (Why are you here?) --Dhartung | Talk 03:57, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The entry on wictionary is small in comparison, but I'm not sure why you call WP:V on this one? [1] [2] Yngvarr (t) (c) 15:42, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment. Because the article is completely unreferenced, and has been for more than six months. The entry makes claims that the two references you provide don't substantiate. -- Mikeblas 16:00, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Etymologically speaking, the word is referenced, and that's all that needs to be for the entry in wictionary. How about this one? [3] Yngvarr (t) (c) 16:18, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
TW & Delete: Yeah. Per above comment. - Rjd0060 15:07, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - inappropriate for wikipedia. /Blaxthos 17:37, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - unreferenced and I can't see how this page would ever be anything other than a dictionary definition so it is not appropriate for wikipedia (WP:NOT#DICTIONARY)--Cailil ^talk 18:01, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but move to work addiction and source. This has been a subject of "pop psychology" for four decades. Workaholic has over 4000 results on Google Scholar and over 1000 results on Google Books (note: for some topics GB results in the tens are significant). There are implications for personal health, for marriages, for children, and even for the employer. There's no reason this can't be a fully sourced article. --Dhartung | Talk 19:00, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

work addiction redirects to Workaholic Colonel Warden 21:09, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Indeed it does. I think switching them makes more sense as the article should be about the "syndrome" and not the "sufferer". --Dhartung | Talk 03:54, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Adequate notability and sources User:Colonel Warden at work, late on Saturday night :)
Keep, even without the expansion because of the countless interwikis. AfD is not for cleanup, although it helped in this case. ;-) – sgeureka ^t•c 22:17, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Move or redirect to work addiction - clean-up helps a lot, however a workaholic article will remain a dictionary definition. Change redirects to make work addiction an article and workaholic a redirect--Cailil ^talk 23:29, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. Article traces the origin of the term as well as describing the condition itself, the psychological compulsion to stay at the workplace even when it is not expected. Mandsford 01:25, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Since work addiction redirects to this article and the improvement it achieved. Don't you think it already approached the Heymann standard?--Lenticel ^(talk) 10:04, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per cleanup fixes.--SarekOfVulcan 19:22, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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.