Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Employee relations

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 industrial relations. Content may be merged at editorial discretion. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 20:07, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Employee relations

Employee relations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Already covered in Employment. Any expansion should happen there if there is something missing from that article (with reliable sources, not one self-published by the article creator). Fails WP:OR as the only source is the article creator's own blog, from which the article is basically copied. This leads to the suspicion that this article was created solely for the purpose of promoting the creator's blog. Harry the Dog WOOF 08:08, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

• Redirect to Employment. For now, anyway. The subject is one that could potentially be the subject of its own article at some point in time. However at this point in time the article is just a dictionary definition copied from someone's website, which wouldn't be a reliable source even if there weren't concerns of COI and copyvio. There's some definite promotional undertones to this, as the website just so happens to be soliciting its services and products for various people. As far as any COI goes, I want to stress that the original article creator is someone who does web design and designed the website for Oakbridge. This is pretty much a further attempt to promote the company. All that aside, like I said- there is merit in expanding that section about employee relations from the Employment page. This just isn't the way to go about it. Unless someone else can expand the content using reliable sources I'm willing to change my opinion, but as the article is now? Nuke it.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 09:05, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

• Keep Our editing policy is to improve rather than to delete and this is clearly possible as numerous have been written about this topic. Warden (talk) 13:31, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
• Delete - verges on the dictionary defintion; seems to have been created as a coatrack to provide an excuse for a weblink to the creator's client's website. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:40, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
• Delete: Blatantly self-promotional OR that has zero utility as the basis of a future spinoff article. Right now, it's just a WP:DICDEF and WP:CFORK whose primary purpose is to promote the business interests of the articles creator, and based solely on one extremely unreliable source. Best to flush it entirely, and build any future spin-off article on clean soil, rather than trying to salvage and expand on anything here. No evidence that a spin-off article is justified at the present time. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 13:43, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
• Don't delete the title. Keep it if someone rework the article to make it useful (which it definitely isn't, due to the problems that Harry identifies), or redirect per Tokyogirl if not. Remember that titles should only be deleted if they're not going to be useful redirects. Due to the copyright issue (there's an OTRS pending template at the talk page), if redirecting be the solution, it might be safest to delete this and immediately recreate it as a redirect. Nyttend (talk) 13:53, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

• What concerns me is that even if the text is usable without copyright issues, I'm not sure that this is really all that usable as a reliable source in the grand scheme of things. Probably better to just toss it and re-write it entirely.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 14:50, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

• Redirect to industrial relations also known as employment relations and "employee relations" [1]. This page was created as an advertisement for one self-published book (now removed). Whether HRM and IR/ER is the same topic or not is indeed a matter of some debate [2], depending how one defines HRM [3]. However clearly we do not need a 3rd article on the topic using "employee" instead of "employment". Tijfo098 (talk) 19:58, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
• There is ample coverage about this, as Google news archive search easily finds. [4] [5] There are job titles of "employee relations manager", "Adviser- Employee Relations", and "Employee Relations Supervisor". If someone wanted to write out more information than would fit in the employment article, I'd say keep. If not, it seems to be covered over there. Just redirect for now, and if enough information is added, make it into a content fork later on. Dream Focus 22:26, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
  • It's part of the re-branding campaign of IR. Well explained in the lead of industrial relations. Tijfo098 (talk) 22:37, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
• Redirect to industrial relations, which is the same topic. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:19, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
• Redirect/Merge to industrial relations. The article itself says it's synonymous with "employment relations" (which redirects to industrial relations); Wikipedia articles are normally about things/concepts, not terms, and having two articles about the same thing is a form of content forkery. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ]} 16:23, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
• Redirect to industrial relations. Professionally speaking, I understand the differences in the various terms from a labor market perspective. That said, in reality, the definition varies from one culture to the next. Having worked in state government with California and Washington State, I am aware that both state labor markets define the terms differently. The terms additionally differentiate from one region and one country to the next. It is clear that this article was created to highlight and promote one organization's interpretation of the terms used. At this point, the content is not differentiated to the point that a separate article presenting one view would be universally understood or accepted. Until that point, I recommend redirecting to industrial relations, which currently appears to serve as a "catchall". Cindy(talk to me) 18:08, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:19, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

• Merge/Redirect as per above. Unnecessary WP:CFORK, but useful term (✉→BWilkins←✎) 12:00, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
• Merge/Redirect to Industrial relations which seems to be a more developed article. If sources show this is the correct name instead then it can be moved back. Insomesia (talk) 19:42, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
• Redirect to industrial relations, which covers the same topic. Plausible search term. Merge, if there's anything of value to merge.--xanchester (t) 00:18, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

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.