Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Employe

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 Employment. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-04-13 06:09Z

Employe

Neologism, violation of WP:NEO. Possible hoax as there is no verification available to validate claims. Stoic atarian 01:05, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article doesn't violate WP:NEO, as it's describing a specific event rather than defining the word "employe". Having said that, it appears to fail WP:N, as it doesn't seem to be a notable event. It might be best to move some on the info into the General Motors article. -Panser Born- (talk) 01:13, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Panser. --Lmblackjack21 01:31, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki and merge to wikt:employe. This is not a neologism, but an actual albeit uncommon spelling of the word "employee". However, the article is solely about this spelling of the word, not the concept behind the word. ~~Thus, it belongs in the dictionary rather than the encyclopedia.~~ --Metropolitan90 02:51, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Employment per Peripitus and Uncle G below. --Metropolitan90 04:02, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki and merge Not a neologism but belongs on Wiktionary and not Wikipedia. DanielT5 03:39, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep, only if it can be sourced. That corporations and courts are concerned with and become involved in such minutiae is notable, if only as a sign of the coming apocalypse. --killing sparrows 05:05, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a hoax. Although there is a wiktionary article there are no hits on the askoxford site. The entire body of the article consists of the opening, which is an unsourced absurd idea copied from one of the Dilbert strips, and an odd section on the use of one word by one court. The article smells of a hoax particularly given that it was created by two single purpose accounts. If not deleted the only option I can see is to redirect to Employment as a possible misspelling - Peripitus (Talk) 11:18, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Non-notable anyways. BlackBear 13:20, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki Wikipedia is not a dictionary, this entry belongs to a dictionary. Wooyi^{Talk, Editor review} 17:12, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Peripitus has hit the nail on the head. This article is a hoax. The word "employe" can be found in texts dating at least as as far back as 1859, long before General Motors even existed. It's a perfectly normal, albeit rarely used nowadays, alternative spelling of "employee". Just redirect this to employment, as the employee spelling already does. Uncle G 20:54, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Transwiki - Only if this article can have better sources it should be transwiki--Joebengo 06:16, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki - "employe" is in Merriam-Webster[1] as a variation of "employee." --Mary quite contrary ^(hai?) 19:46, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification - Transwiki only as a variation of "employee", removing urban myth garbage --Mary quite contrary ^(hai?) 18:03, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as hoax. While the OED confirms the historical use, the "save printing ink" story stinks of urban myth or fabrication. Tearlach 23:42, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I worked for EDS back in 1990 or so, when they were still owned by General Motors, and I remember seeing "employe" as a spelling in company documents. I never figured out why they spelled it that way. I don't think this entry is a hoax, but I doubt there are any verifiable stories about why it's spelled with one "e" at the end. Rather than trying to debunk this, just redirect it to employment as Uncle G mentioned above. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 14:41, 11 April 2007 (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.