Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Big labor

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. Discussion indicates that the neologism doesn't have enough material/sources to have an article. There was also support for redirection, but since there is no agreement on the target, deletion prevails - I believe this is the normal method to handle conflicting redirect targets. If I am wrong, please note so on my talk page. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:36, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Big labor

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

Article about a neologism. As Wikipedia is not a dictionary, any coverage of the term would most appropriately be in the article Opposition to trade unions. Graham (talk) 19:27, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Graham (talk) 19:51, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: WP:NOTADICTIONARY. KGirlTrucker81^{talk what I'm been doing} 20:14, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Might this article be improved? The current version doesn't cite any sources and reads like a dictionary definition, but based on the links to the search results on google scholar, google books and news, it seems like the concept passes WP:GNG. —PermStrump(talk) 20:23, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As WP:NEO discusses, it's not enough to find a great number of uses of the term when the sources are not discussing the term per se.

In addition, I think we have to consider WP:NOPAGE. Even if the term were notable in itself (which is an argument I don't think would be reconcilable with WP:NEO), WP:NOPAGE tells us that sometimes "it is better to cover notable topics, that clearly should be included in Wikipedia, as part of a larger page about a broader topic, with more context." Even if detailed standalone works could be found about the term big labor itself, it would be best covered in the context of opposition to trade unionism more generally. Graham (talk) 21:34, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to opposition to trade unionism or trade unionism. The term appears to be in fairly frequent use in the U.S., though I'm not familiar with it. Thomas A. Kochan's 1979 article, "How American workers view labor unions", seems to be the only serious study relating to the term which gets cited in the academic literature; I don't think there's enough for a stand-alone article. Warofdreams talk 00:29, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – If the article is redirected, my preference would be to redirect it to Trade union (unless, in the future, Opposition to trade unions specifically discusses the term). Graham (talk) 04:00, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Should be included in the general article on trade unions, and a redirect to that article created. - Tim1965 (talk) 14:24, 30 August 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.