Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Workplace violation

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 Labor law. Some content could be merged from history subject to editorial consensus. Sandstein 10:45, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Workplace violation

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

Prodded several months ago. Prod removed with explanation left on talk page. However, the explanation doesn't really explain why this is notable in its own right. Currently doesn't have any reliable sourcing. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:14, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:39, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:39, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - this is a legal term of art to encompass several issues, as listed in the article. Your results may vary, but it seems to have at least a few reliable sources. This concept is likely to prove useful in the next four years, as employment law evolves. I found several more sources at Google books and Google scholar. This stub needs work, not deletion. Bearian (talk) 15:10, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:28, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I don't think this is a defined legal term. The phrase is used fairly frequently, but in a haphazard and ill-defined manner. It is perhaps used most commonly to refer to OSHA workplace safety issues and to wage-and-salary issues. However, it is unclear whether it relates to violation of statutes, regulations, ordinances, company policies or norms of social behavior. Also, it is unclear whether it relates to safety, pay, drug use, etc. Note that the references refer to "workplace" and "violat*" used somewhere in the article, but not necessarily the phrase itself and that should be notable and well-defined in its own right. I think this fails the prohibitions against neologism and WP being used as a dictionary.--Rpclod (talk) 15:22, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to v:Wikiversity as part of the school of business or business law. Michael Ten (talk) 05:09, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:18, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Rpclod - fails notability as a topic of its own at this time. —Мандичка^YO 😜 07:52, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to labor law I'm not convinced that this is quite the term of art that Bearian suggests. In addition to what RPclod points out, a search of allstate/allfed on Westlaw turns up only about 230 mentions of the phrase for all time. The term does not appear in Black's Law Dictionary either. I don't see a distinction between the topics that are or could be covered in this article and the ones that are covered in labor law. agtx 21:31, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I would go along with a smerge. I'd like to keep the sources. Bearian (talk) 00:21, 1 December 2016 (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.