Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Workplace romance

: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 redirect to Workplace relationships. Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:45, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

=[[:Workplace romance]]=

:{{la|Workplace romance}} – (View AfDView log{{int:dot-separator}} [https://tools.wmflabs.org/jackbot/snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Workplace_romance Stats])

:({{Find sources AFD|Workplace romance}})

Article seems to be a messy essay with some how-to. No indication of notability as a topic; in fact, not discussed as an encyclopedic topic. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Workplace relationships. LaundryPizza03 (talk) 10:36, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

:Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:38, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

:Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:38, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Keep The topic is evidently notable and being a "messy essay" is the normal state of Wikipedia articles and, per our editing policy, is not a reason to delete. Andrew D. (talk) 16:38, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
: {{ping|Andrew Davidson}} How do you feel about the merge and redirect to Workplace relationships I have proposed below? There is a section in that article on workplace romance, and if the section is developed, the content can be broken out again. bd2412 T 01:20, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
:: I would oppose merger. The workplace relationships topic covers a variety of substantial types including friendships and hierarchy. Romance at work is a massive and distinct topic with plenty of aspects and sub-topics including flirting, sexual harassment, fictional treatments &c. Andrew D. (talk) 01:34, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
::: I can see that in some future state of the article, but not in the article as it currently exists. bd2412 T 04:36, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

{{resize|91%|Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.}}

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:19, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Delete extremely poorly written and sourced. JDDJS (talk) 20:09, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
Merge and redirect the very small amount that is neutrally sourced and written in an encyclopedic tone to Workplace relationships. bd2412 T 01:19, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
Delete- As other have said poorly sourced and poorly written. The article is likely original research. If we were to remove all the unsourced information there would only be a couple paragraphs left.--Rusf10 (talk) 00:01, 23 January 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.