Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Absolute employment

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 delete. Wifione ^Message 11:25, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Absolute employment

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Prod declined by someone who insists there are sources, but my searches turned up only books that use the term, not any that explain it. This fails WP:DICDEF, and the fact that it's been completely untouched for seven years should be testament as to how not-notable it is. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 03:59, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Plenty of mentions in GBooks but I also found little detail. We have criteria for notability explained at Wikipedia:Notability. Not being touched for seven years (even in bold text) is not discussed among the criteria there. --Michig (talk) 10:56, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:25, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:28, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge probably to Employment-to-population ratio or Unemployment. As pointed out this is a term which is occasionally used, but the measure of employment is a major and complex topic. Most of the WP coverage is in the Unemployment article, but that is over long and does not do the statistical aspects justice, with the result it could be misleading. The best article attempting to deal with aspects of it seems to be Employment-to-population ratio but even that needs work. There is another article which is also very unsatisfactory at Effective unemployment rate, written by somebody apparently unaware of the wider topic or that there was a world outside the US - I suggest that should also be merged to whatever target is chosen here. The next stage is probably to split Unemployment to an article on (un)employment measurement but that is an editorial matter. The whole topic needs expert attention - I am certainly not the one and I am able to write this only because I have consulted somebody who for a short time had senior management responsibility in this area. A good article need not be over technical, but it has to be precise and explain the differences between measures and give examples where they have been used. I am told that the authoritative definitions used internationally come from the International Labour Organisation --AJHingston (talk) 10:51, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:02, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Just a dictionary definition, with little attempt to contextualize. There isn't much that would actually be used once it got merged into another article. --Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 23:42, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 01:32, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a dictionary definition. Carrite (talk) 00:21, 27 November 2013 (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.