Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Unemployment in Montreal


 * 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. – Avi 00:47, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Unemployment in Montreal
Delete. Article appears to be incoherent, mixing demographic and immigration discussion without linking it to the article name. I probably made the only edit that made sense between immigration and unemployment. Deet 20:12, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
 * This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 14:13, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure if I should be taking offense at the name of the bot that corrected my nomination or if this is a self-directed description. Deet 01:31, 9 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep - it's an encyclopedic subject but needs a substantial rewrite. MER-C 14:23, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Reconsider. Honestly, the quality of this article is the kind that ruins the reputation of the entire site. Deet 16:24, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment. Are there similar articles for other cities? If there are, then this article should be kept and rewritten? Nlsanand 18:03, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete First off, I just searched for articles relating to unemployment in major cities (NYC, Paris, LA, Tokyo) and found nothing. This does not mean that an article about such a topic could not be created, just that they haven't been. But even still, I would not mind this article if not for the fact that it made absolutely no sense. It is, as Deet stated, incoherent. Most of the article, if not all of it, is completely unrelated to unemployment. All of the references (none of which are actually referenced) refer to unemployment in general terms, not in regard to Montreal, nor even Canada. The article has been tagged for seven months, and has only been edited about a dozen times since then (and many of these edits were further tagging and linking). Put simply, this article is a train wreck. -- Kicking222 22:17, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Allow new creation if the material is WAY different. Arbusto 06:38, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, merge with Montreal what is salvagable
 * It's incoherent, and there's nothing inherently encyclopedic about analyzing job market statistics on a city-by-city basis. Unemployment in Canada would be fine, but breaking that down into separate stub articles for each individual city in Canada is pretty pointless. Delete. Bearcat 21:25, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep. Canada is a very, very fractured country when it comes to societal matters such as unemployment. Reasons for unemployment in Montreal are as different from those in Calgary as reasons in Lesotho would be from those in Slovenia. The article isn't well-written, but that's not a reason for deletion, only for improvement. Charlene.fic 01:00, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment. Let's for a moment remove all info that is not directly link to unemployment in Montreal (as opposed to out-of-place demographic info or some blurb on the general social ills of unemployment).  The entire article then reduces to:
 * Canada has the highest per capita immigration rate in the world with a significant portion settling in Montreal. Canadian landed immigrants have an 37% unemployment rate, putting upward pressure on Montreal's employment rate (see related article, Economic impact of immigration to Canada). Figures were obtained for each of the 1996 census tracts and then aggregated at the police district level. The 1998 survey included individuals residing in 182 different census tracts. The proportion of persons unemployed was computed as follows: numerator = number of unemployed individuals (>15 yr old); denominator = number of individuals (>15 yr old) in the labour force. Community unemployment varied from a maximum of 30% to a minimum of 5% across the 49 police districts of Montreal.
 * If we keep it, I intend to reduce it down to this. Would it still be worth keeping?  Let's get real and delete it. I can't believe there is any serious debate about it. Deet 02:06, 10 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete; this gives the general impression of a mildly incoherent WP:OR essay. Possibly merge the relevant sections cited by Deet above to Montreal or some other relevant article. Sandstein 08:11, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete looks like a poorly written school paper. Duke of Duchess Street 16:17, 11 October 2006 (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.