Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Universal Living Wage

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 no consensus‎ and none appears likely to come about. Star Mississippi 01:35, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

Universal Living Wage

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Universal Living Wage (ULW)

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

• How to contribute
• Introduction to deletion process
• Guide to deletion (glossary)
• Help, my article got nominated for deletion!

Universal Living Wage (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

Since the last AfD, which was closed as keep, pretty much nothing was done to clean up the article. I know deletion is not cleanup, but this seems like a case where TNT may be needed. Of note is that I had tagged the article for speedy deletion for G5 in November 2022, but removed it after I was told G5 doesn't apply to pages others have edited. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 08:36, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 08:36, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
• Keep - I understand the nominator's frustration, but there is not a valid policy rationale for an AfD. It falls better under WP:DEADLINE. I think the issue is lack of attention. The article as written is isn't unencylopaedic or even wrong; it's just bad. A reader coming to this article is not going to be misled or even misinformed. The subject clears WP:GNG just in journal mentions alone. The article is horribly sourced, but sources are out there (starting around 2007 with some as late as 2022, clearing WP:SIGCOV and WP:SUSTAINED) even if they're not cited (yet) in the article. WP:TNT doesn't really make sense because there is no apparent WP:PAID problem or other massive contention over the content that makes consensus and value impossible. It's tagged appropriately to warn the reader and attract editors. That's what we are supposed to have. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 18:41, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:45, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

I'd send it to draft, it needs a rewrite. Oaktree b (talk) 14:21, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 14:44, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
• Seems like it could probably be merged somewhere as there are lots of similar topics, but I haven't identified an obvious target. Certainly don't draftify a 3-year-old article whose creator can't edit. That's just deletion. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:41, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 06:08, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Delete. I wasn't able to find any sources that don't just mention this campaign/concept tangentially. The sources the article currently has aren't sufficient, with some being blog-like. If there are good sources about this topic, I'm happy to look at the, but since this article has been AfD'd a week ago, this hasn't happened. Cortador (talk) 12:26, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

• Comment @Last1in: Could you give some examples of the sources you're finding? I'm struggling to find any. Sojourner in the earth (talk) 09:19, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

  My WP:THREE:

  Annoyingly, this one has a wonderful biblio, but I can't get it to open any more.

  This is core info as a secondary analysis of the Troxell concept versus similar ones

  This has info on the formulation itself.

  Please note that I don't think the article (or sourcing) is good, nor do I think there is a lot of info out there. Even as written, though, I feel that the article passes WP:GNG and the subject is absolutely encyclopaedic. It is the kind of topic that people come to Wikipedia to understand for that very reason: It is infrequently mentioned and rarely explained in detail. Wikipedia is not improved by deleting this article. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 13:10, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

  Thanks. Your third source tips the balance to a Keep for me, alongside the news sources already present in the article. I do think in the long run that the article could probably be merged into Living wage#Living wage movements, but for now I'm satisified that the topic passes GNG. Sojourner in the earth (talk) 16:21, 21 September 2023 (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.