Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dead-end job


 * 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   keep. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:30, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Dead-end job

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

As a sociologist, I often find myself defending similar articles from deletion. This is because they are usually notable, academic terms. This one, however, seems to me like a media/popular culture term of about as much notability as "crappy job" or such - a term that is not used by academics, and that has no potential for being anything but a redirect. This topic is covered in more properly named articles, from Wage slavery to McJob (where I'd suggest redirect it). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 07:16, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep I agree that dead-end job and McJob are largely synonymous. There are difficulties with a redirect, however. One is that the former is the much older term, in more common use (even on a superficial Google search that will bias toward the most recent usage) and self explanatory in a way that the other is not. The other is that McJob has very specific connotations which that article necessarily needs to devote considerable space to discussing, which then skews the article away from the more general issues. I disagree with the nom that these are superficial or adequately dealt with at Wage-slavery (which is not the same thing). So his logic would point toward merging McJob to the present article. My own preference would be to keep and expand Dead-end job (on which much could be said from an economist's as well as sociological perspective) and have the McJob article cross-referencing to it and dealing with the specific aspects of that particular term. --AJHingston (talk) 08:33, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. I'm not entirely convinced this should be kept (I have some WP:DICDEF concerns) but I really don't think it should be redirected to McJob or Wage slavery. A "dead end job" is specifically a job where prospects for progression are limited. On the other hand, half of our own McJob article focuses on the fact that a McJob is quite often the very opposite and that many who start in "menial" jobs at McDonalds (and other comparable organisations) end up in very senior positions. In a lot of cases it would be fair to apply the term "dead end job" to an entry level job without the same professional development and progression opportunities offered by McDonalds by comparison. Like AJHingston, and ironically unlike the subject of the article, I think this article has potential. Stalwart 111  09:41, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep The claim of the nomination that this term is not used by academics is false. See Dead-end jobs and youth unemployment; Are women over-represented in dead-end jobs?; Low-wage careers: are there dead-end firms and dead-end jobs?; &c. Warden (talk) 11:12, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:20, 18 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Unless you can show that they are defining this term, it's the same case of a popular common English phrase usage. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 02:49, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Are you looking for examples examining the topic as in Stacie, or the definitional entry for dead-end job in Hodgson and Sullivan? ? Either more than satisfies the normal requirements for Wikipedia, and there are plenty more examples from a search in Google Books. We need to distinguish in this discussion between the present state of the article and its potential - it is the latter which matters at AfD. --AJHingston (talk) 11:36, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I wish I could see the Hodgson and Sullivan def, but sadly Google refuses to offer preview to me on this one :( --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 07:22, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I have refreshed the link above, so perhaps you will be able to view it now. I make no especial claim for it but picked an example of how the term is understood by some writers. The distinction is made there between 'dead-end' and 'entry-port' jobs which brings us to the debate above about where McJobs fit. Academics, politicians and others will disagree amongst themselves about aspects of this topic, of course, so the issue here is not whether we can improve the definition but whether it is notable as a term and has the potential for a good article taking in the different perspectives. --AJHingston (talk) 08:47, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I still cannot access it, but it seems like a good source. If you could expand the article using this source as a ref, I think it may bring the article to a point where this AfD could be safely dismissed. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 08:54, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Odd that the link does not work for you, as it was generated by Google. I am out of my comfort zone with this article - it seems to me that there is a great deal to be said on the topic from economic and sociological perspectives, so more in your field. Aside from the obvious negative connotations, there is the argument that their existence improves employment levels, lubricates the labour market, the jobs may be fulfilling for the individual, provide employment experience, are inherent in the nature of the diversity of requirements of employer and employees, etc. But I will think about how to improve it quickly without much effort, though it is not my first priority at this moment. --AJHingston (talk) 11:51, 21 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete The References link to Daily Mail Tabloid Articles and to what it refers to as "Dead-End Jobs" Seem Trivial. --William Wright (talk) 09:31, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Have you read the other links discussed in this AfD debate, or are you basing your decision solely on the Daily Mail reference? --Colapeninsula (talk) 14:07, 21 October 2013 (UTC)


 * See below for updated !vote - Pointillist (talk) 08:15, 22 October 2013 (UTC) Delete. I'm afraid this concept hasn't been sufficiently documented by reliable sources. I did a good-faith search (including google books, google scholar, site:edu, site:ac.uk, site:economist.com) and there's no doubt the term is widely used. But all the uses I found were informal, e.g. this academic paper is titled "Stepping Stone" versus "Dead End" Jobs&mdash;using quotes to indicate that the term is common parlance rather having a formal meaning in that discipline. Likewise, I saw plenty of mentions in popular culture – the title  of abook by Ingrid Reinke, a younger readers book by Vicki Grant, an adult-literacy story by John Goodwin, and this 2010 movie – but none of those seemed sufficient either. Happy to be over-ruled on this. Do not redirect to McJob: that's a different concept. - Pointillist (talk) 21:36, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
 * @User:Pointillist: Indeed, the question revolves around the issue of whether this term can be defined in an encyclopedic style, with reliable sources, beyond its informal usage (which belongs on Wiktionary or Urban Dictionary instead). User:Colapeninsula are making me slowly lean towards that the concept is notable, as he points out, informality of the term doesn't change the fact that the concept is used in reliable sources. If we can have an article on Effects of teen advertising on body image, I think we can have an article on "Workplace occupations with limited possibility of career advancement or such, aka "dead end job". But the difference is that the article I link (teen advertising) is well referenced and shows notability, thus passing GNG, whereas the one we are discussing here is not doing so well on that front. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 03:59, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep. I managed to untangle AJHingston's google books link. The key here is to search for stepping stone, which finds comparisons to dead-end jobs (sources follow). The two concepts should be described and contrasted in a single Stepping stone vs dead-end jobs article, IMO. McJob should remain separate. - Pointillist (talk) 08:35, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * , commended here by Ronald G. Ehrenberg
 * 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.
 * 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.
 * 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.
 * 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.
 * 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.
 * 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.
 * 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.