Talk:Family Resources Survey

	United Kingdom portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject United KingdomUnited Kingdom articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Economics Low‑importance

	Business and economics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Economics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Economics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EconomicsWikipedia:WikiProject EconomicsTemplate:WikiProject EconomicsEconomics articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Sociology Low‑importance

	Society portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SociologyWikipedia:WikiProject SociologyTemplate:WikiProject Sociologysociology articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Suggested merge

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

The result was no consensus. Actually the article has been redirected in the meantime. --B. Wolterding 19:30, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have to disagree with the merge. This is one of the largest and most significant surveys in the UK, used by many other entities than the DWP. It would be out of place in the DWP article, and there is plenty more to be written about it. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 02:33, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

reply I suggested the merge. If the article is to be kept, it should be GREATLY expanded. A 2-sentance article is more appropriate as a 2-sentance section of the parent article, in this case the DWP. I still don;t understand why the DWP article couldn't have a section titled "Surveys used by DWP" that would list all surveys each with a 2-sentance description. Expand the article considerably, with references, or it should be merged as suggested. --Jayron32 01:46, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. In view of the fact that the article has not been expanded since October (more than half a year now), I think it would be best to merge it to a section in DWP article. Of course it can always be moved back to a separate article if someone does want to expand it. --B. Wolterding 15:52, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

reply I disagree with the merge. Merging this article with the DWP article will achieve very little. The subject of the article is broad enough to merit its own wikipedia article. The fact the article does not cover the broadness of the subject, does not mean the article should not exist. It's just a stub. Stubs are acceptable on wikipedia because stubs encourage subjects to be expanded, and there is a great need for information about social surveys (like the subject of this article) to be expanded. Supposed

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I think if there's no consensus the article should stay Supposed 00:14, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it can and should stay if it's expanded even a little, if someone gets around to writing a few good paragraphs. A merger to an article about a government department was never going to be a good idea. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 01:24, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As you like. I only stated that there was no consensus to merge; I did not change the article or place the redirect. If you want to expand it, just go ahead. --B. Wolterding 09:38, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]