Talk:Disadvantaged

POV

I have POV'd this article as the current content is poorly written and highly contentious for such a wide-ranging term as 'Disadvantaged'. Eddie.willers 01:07, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think this really ought to be a Wiktionary entry. --K e rowyn ^{Leave a note} 07:58, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (with tage for improvement) May I first congratulate Eddie.willers. You are literally the first person on an article for deletion that has used the talk pages. It is quite clear the article needs improvement, however as Eddie said "the disadvantaged" is a common term which I am certain will yield many results if I searched for it. So, there is clearly potential for an article. I would have thought the appropriate procedure would be to ask for improvement and only if that fails to request a delete! --Mike 23:02, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As I voted that it did deserve an article - I did a bit of editing and now believe I've done enough to warrant removal of all the tags which should encourage the original author to improve the article! Unfortunately I'm not sure on all these stupid procedures and if I do remove them I'll probably get banned for life or sent to work for micro$oft. Perhaps someone who knows what they are doing could remove all the tags and add the bits and pieces I know nothing about (ideally tell me what they are so I can add them myself), e.g. why isn't there a contents list? (Found it - I missed it with all these stupid tags - isn't it ironic, a tag saying "tidy up" which completely messes up the article!

Wikipedia articles are never deleted - they only go to join the Wikipedia Ghosts!

--Mike 11:23, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

B*gg*r - Why am I bothering I'm leaving it as it is, someone's bound to delete it anyway (I think the notices are getting to me!), I'm off! --Mike 12:03, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just remove the prod tags and it won't be deleted. If people still think it should be deleted, they need to take it to AFD. There is no rule against removing the prod tag! I'll do that now for you QuiteUnusual 15:00, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why does this article exist?

Each of the sections covers a topic that is encyclopedic and deserves an article of its own. However, I see no point in putting them all under the umbrella of the term "disadvantaged". I don't think they share enough commonality to warrant that. If no one puts up a compelling argument to keep this article, I will nominate it for deletion. AFD debates are often stressful to those who support keeping an article so I propose that we discuss it first here before I take the next step to nominate it for deletion. Maybe I can be convinced that I'm wrong.

--Richard 00:29, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm in total agreement; this article should not exist. Valrith 01:59, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stop talking nonsense Richard if you say that it can be split into any one of three articles each of which you agree should exist then you can't also say that one article with all three should be deleted. If you don't like it - put in the work to improve it!

--Mike 23:08, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ha ha. Hoisted on my own petard. That "If you don't like it -...." remark is a page out of my book. Being an inclusionist, I certainly believe that articles should be expanded and improved until they can be kept. I much prefer to expand and improve rather than delete.

However, in this case, my argument is that the three phrases are mostly similar because they share the word "disadvantaged" and that, other than that, the three topics have little to do with each other except for that one word. Put it this way: If we simply had one separate article on each of the three topics, would anything be lost by deleting this one? If not, then I will gladly create the three articles because I believe each one is encyclopedic in its own right.

While this is a bit of a silly analogy, it is somewhat like having an article called French which covers "French fries","French toast" and "French kissing". (Yeah, yeah, I know that's really taking things to an extreme but you get my point.)

--Richard 04:28, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Richard - Ah - you are an inclusionist not a deletionist - (an angel not a devil!) That puts your comments in a very different light. Like you I think there is a good article here. As originally written it was the expected "the disadvantaged deserve support", which was in immediate danger of becoming a Wikighost - seeing the notice I felt that the term was used with a specific meaning, so I pulled together what information I could find in the short time available hoping to stave off the devils and let someone with more knowledge in the area put it together properly.

My fear about separating them would be that a deletionist would come along and zap the lot. This isn't a subject I know a lot about, so I can't really productively add much to the present article or say with any certainty whether it should be several smaller articles or one large! --Mike 12:01, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Disadvantaged. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:21, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Split (2022)

This article is a grabbag of two different topics. They should be split apart, and a disambiguation page put in its place with the two concepts here, and a link to disadvantage (politics); and a see also for drawback (disambiguation).

I suggest the two topics be titled disadvantaged (disability) and disadvantaged (economics). Most of this article would be "disadvantaged (economics)" while a stub from the bullet point for "disadvantaged (disablity)" would be created.

Alternately, the "disadvantaged (disability)" should be deleted, since it makes a mess of this article.

too small to split, already basically a stub and likely entirely redundant with other articles; splitting would be a move in the wrong direction. This isn't wiktionary. 98.4.112.204 (talk) 06:20, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

-- 64.229.88.43 (talk) 02:22, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]