Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bullying in academia

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. Though the comments below about NOR/forking issues should really be taken onboard in the course of normal editing. I'm also worried that the title and tone of the article lead to some POV issues, but this can also be solved via normal editing. Protonk (talk) 21:24, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bullying in academia

[edit]
Bullying in academia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete. (edited to support merging to Workplace bullying) POV fork. (copied from below [within this paragraph] and restructured to provide clarification.) This is a two sentence article, supported by one reference and a whole slew of "further reading" links, external links, and templates on "aspects of workplaces", "employment", "bullying", and "abuse". (edited to clarify that the overview of the article is provided for comprehension, not as a rationale for deletion.) Based on originating editor's statements, it appears to be a POV fork of both School bullying and Workplace bullying. Cind.amuse 20:34, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: It is a stub supported by many reliable academic sources. Six or seven of the sources provide the full text, usually in PDF format, so the reader of the article can easily view the complexity and voracity of the subject. There is s lot of scope for dramatically expanding the article based on summaries of the cited sources but that remains to be done.
I think the nominator's argument that it is a double fork is self-undermining. Within the context of bullying in academia, there can be all kinds of bullying: some elements unique to that institution (such as faculty bullying), some elements similar to workplace bullying (as it is a workplace) and some elements similar to school bullying (as it involves education). The article is about bullying in the context of adult education and not child education. Adult bullying and child bullying is very different.
All citations used specifically relate to bullying in academia (aka further education, university etc). None of them deal with school bullying in general or workplace bullying in general. None of the material used or similar appears in school bullying or workplace bullying so there is no question of any forking or overlap. All citations treat the subject as as a discrete subject so there is hardly any POV forking here when none of the citations support this view.
I cant see any relevance in mentioning the templates listed. Each template lists about 50 or so articles and it is no big deal that those templates are included here.
--Penbat (talk) 21:02, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Being a stub is not a reason to delete. See An Academic Life for an example of a source. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:34, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. The proposal for deletion has nothing to do with being a stub. This article is a fork of other articles that we already have. Cind.amuse 20:34, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment. The first sentence of your nomination statement is a red herring then and serves no purpose. IMHO it ought to be deleted. As for your second sentence, presumably you are referring to your interpretation of my comments at Talk:Bullying_in_academia but you dont seem to have done your own analysis. If you did so you will see there is no question of forking. For example, the 4 references that refer to "workplace bullying" do so specifically in an academic context and not workplace bullying in general. The article only partly relates to workplace bullying anyway.--Penbat (talk) 20:59, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Actually, no. The article was nominated and indicated as a POV and content fork, based on the assessment by another administrator that took ill. We both agreed that a deletion discussion was warranted. At this point, the article indicates that "bullying in academia has its own unique features", but then the article fails to indicate those features. A statement is made that bullying in academia is "believed to be common," but doesn't indicate who believes this or why they believe this. The article presents a summation that the subject "has not received as much attention from researchers as bullying in some other contexts", then simply provides a page of external links. Essentially, this article indicates a point of view that would be normally found on the talk pages of the Workplace bullying or School bullying articles to assert a view that those articles should focus more on the bullying of adults in an academic environment. In my opinion, this is clearly a point of view and content fork masquerading as an article. Cind.amuse 23:59, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It was you who made a snap judgement as part of new article patrolling suggesting it was a fork of school bullying only. User:Bearian deleted your speedy delete proposal and suggested to you that it was discussed at AFD as an alternative. He did not express his own opinion (see User_talk:Cindamuse#Bullying_in_academia). Looking at your comments at User_talk:Cindamuse#Bullying_in_academia you say nothing more than you said here, that your view is "based on the author's statements". You dont seem to have read my other comments here, for example, mobbing and workplace incivility are as relevant to this article as school bullying and workplace bullying. Although you denied it, you seem to have undermined your own case again by banging on about the inadequacy and shortage of text when the article has only just been created as a stub. There is a lot of scope for dramatically amplifying, clarifying and expanding the text from the many sources listed.--Penbat (talk) 09:41, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, I placed the CSD tag and after reading the comment on the talk page, felt that the article deserved to be presented to the community for discussion. When I went to nominate the article, User:Bearian beat me to it for the same reasons and came to the same conclusions that I had, that it is a POV content fork of school bullying and workplace bullying. I spent 20 years working in corporate human resources and have served as the Mental Health Commissioner for the state that I live in. I am completely aware of the issues involved and recognize the point of view that you clearly are attempting to present in this article. BTW, there could also be an argument for this article to be considered a fork of mobbing and workplace incivility. It is a POV content fork, plain and simple. Nothing more. I like your statement, "The article only partly relates to workplace bullying anyway." I agree. The other part relates to school bullying. Rest assured that I have read all your assertions in this discussion. Best regards, Cind.amuse 10:26, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I can say that quite easily and I don't need 11 comments and counting on this AfD to do so. Academia is one type of workplace. That academics comment on academia more than they do on other workplaces does not imply that this is a more notable workplace than others. There are no real specific distinctions between this workplae and other workplaces. The research suggests that bullying happens in the workplace of academia, not that it is a notable and distinct form of bullying. MLA (talk) 15:58, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: i have better things to do with my life than waste my time here but unfortunately some contributors seem to be blind to the obvious and dont seem to have examined the associated reading list. For example, One of the leading researchers on the subject Kenneth Westhues refers to mobbing and not at all to workplace bullying as do some other researchers. Some also refer to workplace incivility. You still havent answered my points raised for example this article only uses academia-specific sources not workplace bullying in general so there is no question of a lack of distinction. While you are at it, perhaps you might to merge bullying in nursing. Workplace bullying is already a big article and intrinsically it could be twice the length without any futile merging. Also scholars and staff is obviously not the same dynamic as employee and employer.--Penbat (talk) 16:29, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment you are right, the bulling in nursing page should also go. The size is not a problem given that most articles are mainly external links/references so the main article bodies would have more appropriate weight after being merged back. You have not demonstrated that there is a distinction between activities carried out in academia and in other areas of work, merely restated over and over again that there are different types of activites related to bullying. It doesn't matter at all if workplace incivility happens in academia, it matters whether academia is a special case of workplace incivility for instance and the evidence does not in any way suggest such a Fork is needed. If you are arguing that academia is not a workplace but is a part of learning then the subject matter here is merely a part of the same phenomenon as school bullying. Neither demonstrates any case for a separate article. MLA (talk) 17:13, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The original thinking of the nominator and another editor was that this was a fork of school bullying but now we seem to have lurched to the idea that it is a fork of workplace bullying. There are thousands of stubs in Wikipedia, many without a single reference. This article was only created 2 days ago as a stub but for some very odd reason some here think that a list of further reading added to the stub to be used as material for future expansion as inline references and to demonstrate the notability of the subject, is a negative and it would have been better if this stub had just been a few bare sentences and nothing else. There are plenty of such bare stubs in Wikipedia that have been around for years. You still havent commented on my point about mobbing and workplace incivility.--Penbat (talk) 17:26, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment the strawman about this being a stub doesn't make your argument any more compelling and nor does simply repeating comments about types of bullying - the question which is being ignored is what is about academia that makes it a distinct case of these types of bullying. There appears to be no answer forthcoming to this question. I hope the closing admin takes into account the comments and not the weight of text being repeated. MLA (talk) 11:52, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Bullying in colleges and whatnot, is totally different than elementary to high schools. The minds of children and teenagers are different than adults, and so is how they bully, and how they respond to bullying. Clicking on the Google news archive search at the top of the AFD you find three results from Times Higher Education. One mentions the problem and does a survey, another covers the problem [1] and mentions a previous article Bullying rife across campus which covers the problem in detail. Dream Focus 04:29, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note to nominator, if you are going to patrol new articles, please don't try to delete one that is only 18 minutes old. [2] Give it time to grow. Most articles start out like this. Dream Focus 09:46, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. You may want to review the guidelines. WP:NPP. The time to grow articles to a point that it is appropriate for inclusion is generally in a subpage of your userspace. The good "rule of thumb" is about 15 minutes before placing a CSD tag. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cindamuse (talk • contribs)
      • It was fine for a stub article. And there is no rule of thumb for that. Something 18 minutes old shouldn't be nominated for deletion, by rule of common sense and common decency. Dream Focus 10:29, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • It wasn't nominated as a stub. It was flagged with an A10 {{db-same}} at 18 minutes (rule of thumb 15 minutes) and an hour and 14 minutes later nominated under the same criteria. Cind.amuse 11:01, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • WP:NPP states, "Be hesitant to list articles on Wikipedia:Articles for Deletion if there's a chance they could be improved and made into a meaningful article. Tag them for cleanup instead. Try not to step on people's toes. Users will often start an article as the briefest of stubs, and then expand it over the following hours or days.". Colonel Warden (talk) 10:34, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • WP:NPP states, "Especially if the new article has a {{newpage}}, {{inuse}}, or {{underconstruction}} template showing, care should be taken to ensure that the author has finished the initial version before you evaluate the page. A good rule of thumb is to wait until at least 15 minutes after the last edit before tagging the article (or up to an hour for the {{newpage}} tag). Additionally, it may be helpful to check the editor history to be sure that you don't offend an experienced editor who has a set plan to create a valid article." The article was listed at AfD an hour and 14 minutes after creation. Cind.amuse 10:51, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • When one checks the editor history, as suggested, one finds that the creator is an experienced editor who has been working here on related topics for 5 years. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:55, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • I noticed that too. Before I nominated it for deletion. Now, look at the earliest edits and the consistent discussions that he has been involved in regarding POV edits in relationship to bullying. The POV editing has gone on for five years. This is nothing new for him. Rather than bring offense, he probably expected it. Cind.amuse 15:29, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • I am finding your tone to be highly offensive to make such a personal attack, attacking 5 years of my work as POV. I insist you withdraw that accusation immediately. What on earth does "The POV editing has gone on for five years. This is nothing new for him. Rather than bring offense, he probably expected it." mean ? It is you who obviously have POV issues. There are thousands of stubs on Wikipedia but this article is one of the very few that includes a sizable list of reliable sources which can readily be used to expand the article and vouch for its credibility. Why pick on this one ?--Penbat (talk) 15:59, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
              • I'm thinking it would have been appropriate to contact me first, per WP:Discussion. I certainly apologize if the comment offended you, it was certainly not my attention. We are a wide group of personalities from varied backgrounds. I'm a chick and find it amazing that you would refer to me as a him. No offense, really, but I digress. AfD discussions can sometimes get a bit heated, unfortunate, but true. I learned a long time ago to let things just roll off my back. I'm not personally invested in this article. Just honestly, following the process of editing by consensus. This is what Wikipedia is all about. I'm not easily riled, really. It's all just a testament to diversity. Sometimes it helps to simply walk away or take a break. That said, I was responding to another editor that commented and questioned about your length of time as an editor, along with the subject matter in which you tend to edit on Wikipedia. We were discussing the NPP guidelines in regards to "Additionally, it may be helpful to check the editor history to be sure that you don't offend an experienced editor who has a set plan to create a valid article." I simply stated that I followed the guidelines accordingly, to ascertain the history of the editor. Based on the editor's history, and involvement with POV discussions based on his edits in similar articles, it was clear that the other editor was more likely than not, used to having his edits questioned. Really, it's nothing personal, it's just my observations and interpretations of the facts. Please note, once again. The nomination has nothing to do with being a stub article. The article was nominated due to POV/content forking. In the future, please feel free to contact me if you have questions or concerns or feel offended in any manner with anything I have said. Bringing offense is honestly the furthest thing from my mind. Best regards, Cind.amuse 17:15, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The issue of the nominator User:Cindamuse's offensive behaviour is now being addressed at Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts#Offensive_behaviour_by_User:Cindamuse --Penbat (talk) 16:36, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to School bullying. TomCat4680 (talk) 17:45, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment That is a completely impractical idea as the article almost entirely relates to academia, workplace bullying, workplace incivility and mobbing. Your idea makes zero sense. --Penbat (talk) 18:15, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just saying, that's a pretty lofty claim for an article that's one sentence. And any information related to bullying in academia certainly seems that it could also fit in an article on bullying in schools.--Yaksar (let's chat) 18:44, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Yes but look at the titles and click on the links in the further reading/external links sections. They are sources which will be used to expand the article. Those sources are full of references to mobbing, workplace bullying, workplace incivility and academia.--Penbat (talk) 19:19, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment User:Colonel Warden has kindly improved and developed the text from 2 to 4 sentences with a better focus. There is much more potential for expansion though using the long list of sources listed in the article as Further Reading and external links. It was only created as a stub article yesterday. --Penbat (talk) 19:19, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to workplace bullying per WP:CONTENTFORK. TomCat4680 (talk) 04:29, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: A merge to workplace bullying is completely unviable. As previously explained, all the references and sources used in this article are specific to bullying in academia and not workplace bullying in general. Bullying in academia may also end up being a big article, compatible with the already long workplace bullying. Also there is already a long further reading list in workplace bullying and to add a second further reading list for bullying in academia would be unviable and lead to confusion. Anyway it would be confusing to have two separate further reading lists on two discrete subjects in the same article. There would also be a merged See Also list and External Links section which would be confusing. You also seem to have not noticed my previous comment that it is as much to do with academia, mobbing and workplace incivility as workplace bullying. Also "bulling in academia" is about bullying in a specific context, what about any other future Wikipedia articles about bullying in a specific context, by your logic do they also have to be merged in one great big mega-article ? --Penbat (talk) 08:49, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Well what are you waiting for? Expand it already. Have you even read the dozen and a half links you added? Are you ever going to and integrate information from them into the article? Right now this looks like barely effort was put into it. You made a thesis but there's no specific examples. Also I still don't see why this is any different than workplace bullying. Also stop sending me AFD related messages on my talk page, leave all comments here. 19:22, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Delete. The references out-weigh the body copy. If there's enough material for that many academic articles there should be enough for at least two sentences for each referenced paper. Something just doesn't seem right about the article. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:29, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:That's in no way, shape, or form an argument against inclusion. "Too many references"? Please.Throwaway85 (talk) 08:32, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
:) Agree. Anarchangel (talk) 22:16, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Your logic is completely back to front. It was only created as a stub 2 days ago. Unlike, most of the other thousands of stubs on Wikipedia there is a list of further reading sources for use in future expansion of the article and to demonstrate its notability. So in that respect it is better than most other stubs not worse.--Penbat (talk) 08:49, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: As against WP:LINKFARM. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:44, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge - I see the value of this article. The article requires major expansion to incorporate the large amount of material found in the further reading sources. If it is merged, it should go into Workplace bullying and a section created for Academic workplace bullying. --Takamaxa (Talk) 05:41, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: ref above comment to TomCat4680 a merge is completely unviable.

Keep and expand. Plethora of quality sources demonstrates notability. Current state of article is not an argument against inclusion. Throwaway85 (talk) 08:32, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment This is not a Fork. It could conceivably be incorporated into one of the other articles, but not only does it does not have to be as its topic is sufficiently distinct, but it is less than suitable to be as its topic straddles the two articles. Nominator's own comment shows that it is no more suitable to add to one article than the other: "I like your statement, "The article only partly relates to workplace bullying anyway." I agree. The other part relates to school bullying."
Never seen a Cindamuse nomination that was not flawed in some small respect, but this one repeats a grand error usually restricted to Delete votes; conflating PoV Fork and Fork. Which is really annoying, because it is so obvious; a fork has to be PoV to be a PoV fork. Duh. A true Fork is reason to delete on its own, and stacking the deck is wrong no matter the reason.
In the absence of evidence to the contrary, characterizing a dedication to a particular topic as necessarily PoV ("...consistent discussions that he has been involved in regarding POV edits in relationship to bullying. The POV editing has gone on for five years. This is nothing new for him.") is Ad hominem and against WP:AGF; "Rather than bring offense, he probably expected it." is over the AGF line.
The goalposts are moved as needed; addressing a reminder that stubs are permissible: "The proposal for deletion has nothing to do with being a stub.", whereupon, rather than striking the "two sentence article" phrase, "POV fork." was added, repetitiously, to the beginning of the nomination.
Nom follows the Keep comments closely, making points, but does not address any concerns of Keepers that are not in the interest of arguments to delete the article, against WP:EQ#Principles of Wikipedia etiquette Point #8: "Do not ignore questions." Nom replies, when this omission is brought up "Rest assured that I have read all your assertions in this discussion. Best regards". Reading is to be expected, but it does not further the discussion; addressing or conceding points is required for that.
I note the Nom makes a Delete vote; a choice which is allowed but uncommon. As with the other behavior, it is congruent with what is to be expected from a lack of detachment from the outcome.
Anarchangel (talk) 22:16, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to workplace bullying. There seem to be enough sources listed here about bullying in this specific field to pass WP:N. But the little text that is present in the article is not very compelling that a separate article is needed. WP:N doesn't require that we have a mini-stub for everything conceivable if a slightly more encompassing topic can be found; WP:SECTION has been invented, and the Google can even search for those nowadays. We have a similarly questionable article bullying in nursing which has a near identical copy present as a section in workplace bullying. If you want to justify separate articles for stuff like this, you need to do better than copypasta. You can spin it as a separate article when you have enough contents, per Wikipedia:SUMMARY.Tijfo098 (talk) 10:29, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - original research. Currently lacks any real content or sufficient context to understand the topic and unlikely it could be improved with out adding more OR. Kuguar03 (talk) 19:20, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Are you on the same planet? Just about every word in the text written so far in the few days the article has existed is backed by 5 good reliable sources. This must be one of the best most rock solid sourced articles in the whole of Wikipedia. There are plenty more sources available, such as the ones listed in further reading, to expand the text. Give me an example of your "real content" ? There are thousands of stubs on Wikipedia without even a single reference and in comparison this is a million times better than any of those.--Penbat (talk) 19:36, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Apparently not, as I've read this article several times and can't make heads or tails of it. It just doesn't say anything. The fact that you're the only one defending it might give you reason to reconsider your position. Kuguar03 (talk) 19:46, 8 March 2011 (UTC)Bold text[reply]
        • Comment: Its obviously futile having a rational discussion with you. You havent provided any analysis to support your view. There has been a fair number of Keepers in this AFD and an interesting comment above from User:Anarchangel. Additionally editors Colonel Warden and User:Novickas have been happy to spend their time improving it. The article is now getting so good after just a few days in existence it is almost a Wikipedia:Good articles contender. --Penbat (talk) 20:12, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • Then you might consider at some point adding content that explains the topic, with maybe some examples so that readers might have some clue what is being discussed? Right now it's just a bunch of out-of-context statistics and random statements. Kuguar03 (talk) 20:58, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • Comment Having a quick scan of your edit history this doesnt seem like your area of expertise. It is a very well written and well structured article which has only been in existence for about 4 days and can only get better. User:Novickas's edits just a short time ago have improved it a lot. I understand it although i can assure you there are plenty of psychology articles which are far far more heavyweight and difficult to understand than this one and are beyond my comprehension. Not understanding an article is not an argument for deleting it.--Penbat (talk) 21:10, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
              • I am an academic, so arguably do have some expertise, but that's irrelevant. Wikipedia articles should be understandable by the general populous. A good first step in improving this article is giving some sort of clear, concise statement of what is actually being discussed so people reading it can have some clue. Also statements like "It is believed to be common" should probably be avoided if your really trying to build a case for notability. Kuguar03 (talk) 06:18, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

COMMENT: User:Novickas has kindly just made a sizable expansion of the text so that it now has 7 references and is split up into 3 separate text sections.--Penbat (talk) 19:58, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Make that 8 references.--Penbat (talk) 20:19, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It now has more referenced sentences than can easily be counted. Could the past and future commentaters check the article. The 'See also' and 'Further reading' sections were useful, they pointed to reliable sources that offer avenues for expansion. If we must cite Wikipedia guidelines or whatever here, how about Wikipedia:Merging - 'Merging should be avoided if the resulting article is too long or "clunky", The separate topics could be expanded into longer standalone (but cross linked) articles, The topics are discrete subjects and deserve their own articles even though they may be short'. This topic is a discrete aspect of workplace bullying and the article is no longer short. Novickas (talk) 03:23, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. The size of the article was never the issue. A merge into the Workplace bullying is completely plausible. The Workplace bullying article is only 18 kb (2849 words) and clearly within the guidelines for readable prose size. We generally don't merge articles above 40 kb. We could double the size of the article and still be within readable prose. Cind.amuse 22:33, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: There are other arguments against merging as well, for example, the 3rd para of Bullying_in_academia#Bullying_and_academic_culture relates to mobbing not workplace bullying. --Penbat (talk) 22:18, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Just more content forking. The lede of mobbing: "Mobbing in the context of human beings either means bullying of an individual by a group in any context, or specifically any workplace bullying." Cind.amuse 22:33, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I actually wrote that lead sentence and it is rather simplistic and not based directly on any particular cited source - I really ought to improve it, i wrote it when i first started the mobbing article. Mobbing has conceptually different roots to workplace bullying although there is some overlap. Mobbing isnt necessarily workplace specific anyway. A similar point also applies to incivility (or workplace incivility) which is also included in the bullying in academia article. Again it is conceptually different to workplace bullying although there is some overlap. Another point is that in some respects the scholar v staff relationship of academia has more to do with school bullying or bullying in general than workplace bullying. --Penbat (talk) 22:39, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

COMMENT: Thanks to User:Novickas we now have 4 text sections and 9 dfferent inline references.--Penbat (talk) 20:33, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 08:29, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relisting comment: The recent expansion caused a large portion of the pre-expansion comments to be no longer applicable; relisted to obtain more comments on the expanded version. T. Canens (talk) 08:32, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I think an extra week is a waste of time. Deletion is now unviable as notability and inclusivity criteria are clearly met in the expanded version of the article. So the remaining options are Keep or Merge. The original nominator now supports a merge. The possibility of merging could easily be discussed on the talk page which is the usual place for such discussion. The arguments for and against merging have already been repeated here several times already.--Penbat (talk) 09:20, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I don't see this as a pure content fork because the article states, based on reliable sources, what differentiates bullying in academia from your average workplace bullying situation. Instead, I see a reliably sourced article that is maybe a little short, but not to the point that it doesn't say anything substantial. Kansan (talk) 18:15, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Clearly a distinct subject. Not a POV fork. Hodja Nasreddin (talk) 02:12, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. A distinct well-sourced subject. Also merging information about distinct workplaces into Workplace bullying would make that article messy and unexpandable - the Workplace_bullying#Bullying_in_nursing section already looks out of place in that article. Diego Moya (talk) 14:45, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The current state of the article seems to make an adequate case for its existence in its own right, the additional reading section and number of sources in use that are specific to academia gives the impression that a good deal more could be added to the article. un☯mi 15:08, 14 March 2011 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Bullying_in_academia&oldid=1137659886"
pFad - Phonifier reborn

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy