Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Flexible contracts

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. The one "keep" comment is too generic to take seriously, linking to a page of search results only. Sandstein 18:44, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Flexible contracts[edit]

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

Very generic legal term that does not meet WP:GNG; has been tagged multiple issues for 6+ years. If there is any useful info on this article it can be merged to Energy in the United Kingdom. —Мандичка^YO 😜 15:21, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:12, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:12, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sources, and generic term. AlbinoFerret 02:58, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

what do you mean by no sources and generic term? Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 23:06, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikicology A flexible contract is any contract that is flexible ie subject to varying terms or renegotiation. Of course you will find a lot of results. That's not the same as significant coverage. —Мандичка^YO 😜 03:26, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody is saying that a passing mention means "Significant coverage". Significant coverages addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it need not be the main topic of the source material. The subject of the article had been widely discussed in multiple independent reliable sources. The is an objective evidence that the subject has received significant attention from independent sources to support a claim of notability. The absence of citations in an article (as distinct from the non-existence of sources) does not indicate that the subject is not notable.Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 04:40, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikicology You only linked to a Google search, so I'm not sure which sources you're referring to - the only coverage I see that has an actual focus refers to the employment contract controversy in the UK (such as this one here), but that topic already exists at Zero-hour contract. Flexible contract is such a generic term that it's more suitable for Wiktionary ("a flexible contract is a contract with varying terms.") than a full WP article. —Мандичка^YO 😜 05:38, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I linked to google search for you to see how it has received significant attention from independent sources to support a claim of notability. I really don't want to engage in much argument on this. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 07:22, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep:- Per significant coverages In multiple independent reliable sources [1]. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 23:06, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this is a legal term of art used in a single small field in one place. There are no reliable sources in the article, and I can't think of any. I can't see how this stub would be of any use to either a lawyer or a layperson. WP:TNT. Bearian (talk) 19:37, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I can find links to sites about flexible contracts for electricity and gas from the utility companies, e.g.:[2]. However, it seems like the main thrust of the topic is less related to the consumer market and more a general energy market concept [3]. It's possible that there are significant articles in the energy business press. However, the term "flexible contracts" is much too generic. The title needs to be specific to the energy market, and the information probably would come from business journals and particularly energy business journals. LaMona (talk) 05:48, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shii (tock) 07:58, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:15, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: LaMona's suggestion of changing the title seems like a good idea, though I don't feel like I can make that decision. I note that this discussion was not delsorted into any legal pages. I will add it into one and I will also alert a Law wikiproject about this discussion. Mr. Guye (talk) 18:30, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mr. Guye (talk) 18:30, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Mr. Guye (talk) 18:34, 6 June 2015 (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.