Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The labor problem

The labor problem

Not a notable subject. vague and incoherent DreamsAreMadeOf 23:44, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No context whatsoever, any notability of the subject is not established. Is covered in various other articles. Perfect Proposal ^{Speak out loud!} 23:57, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "a term widely used ... with various applications" ..?! Joestella 00:18, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, the source says the term was widely used at that time in history. Operation Spooner 05:56, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Perfect Proposal. I'm pretty much sure that this issue is discussed in other articles.--JForget 01:18, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There's probably an article about the "labor problem", but this is an article about the phrase "labor problem", which was a capitalist euphemism at the height of the industrial revolution (or just after, perhaps) for giving labor enough (time off, money, rights, etc.) so that no lower-class political revolutions would take place. The phrase remains resonant and can bee seen in book titles and politics headlines, though many probably have little understanding of its origin. The article has two good references already, though perhaps suffers in the context department.--Dhartung | Talk 05:26, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I accept Dhartung's argument about the notability of the subject, but the article needs to explain this and perhaps be retitled to show the distinction. DGG (talk) 07:03, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Renaming would be inappropriate. The phrase is always "THE labor problem." Operation Spooner 05:56, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Dhartung and DGG. Bearian 02:02, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep More can be said about this topic. There's enough sources discussing it. It's just a matter of people getting around to adding to the article, which should happen in time. Operation Spooner 05:56, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I guess this article could be turned around, but when? There's enough sources? Ok, use them. It's just a matter of time before?... Why haven't they already? It suffers in context? [[User talk:Dhartunh|talk}} just gave a better definition of this subject than what is currently on the page. What I am saying is all the arguements seem to amount to the "Could of, Would of, Should of type". If you can improve the article do so. If not, delete it.--68.0.125.230 04:02, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]