Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/3D's

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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. Article name and content/ quality issues should be handled by editors as they deem appropriate. JERRY talk contribs 03:58, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 3D's

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/3D's
3D's (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Term not notable, but cant figure out a CSD criteria for it. UzEE (Talk • Contribs) 02:04, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

  • STRONG KEEP A google search for "Dirty, Dangerous and Demeaning", with quotations results in 116 exact matches.

A google advanced search for kitanai, kiken, and kitsui, for results with all three terms (often in different sequences) results in 2700 matches.

This term is well documented in common usage, contains meaning beyond its strict definition and adds substantive information to other Wikipedia pages.

Repeatedly describing work as being of low social standing is simplified with a method for this defined work.

The generated call for deletion appears to be from an automated application running an algorithm for dictionary or encyclopedic terms, based on this it is likely this term easily qualifies for inclusion and the tag for review no longer necessary.

Please retain this Wikipedia page and thank you for the opportunity to explain the page's importance. Granite07 (talk)

  • Delete, as this article has nothing worth saving. However the topic may be notable and could qualify for an article (under a better title) or perhaps be a subsection of another article. A search for "dirty dangerous demeaning 3D" yields quite a few useful hits, mostly referring to immigrant labourers. Pburka (talk) 02:19, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
    • This article is starting to improve, but it still has quite a bit of WP:OR. Move to 3D job, and redirect this page to 3ds. Pburka (talk) 02:08, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
  • STRONG KEEP A rewrite incorporating concepts presented, in a more acceptable context is a good idea. On the page, there are now three sources of article content, a web source, conference source and journal source. Suggest referencing someone with background in research on this topic to write revised article. Absent knowledgeable source, collaboration between blue-collar workers and encyclopedic academics could prove useful. Granite07 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 02:43, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment I would just state for the record that I for one read "Dirty, Dangerous and Demeaning", and was just a little disappointed that the article was about laborers... -- RoninBK T C 03:07, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. No reliable sources for nn slang term. A different title, better cites and it could be a keeper. --Bradeos Graphon Βραδέως Γράφων (talk) 04:50, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Change to neutral in view of work done on article. --Bradeos Graphon Βραδέως Γράφων (talk) 18:17, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
    • What sort of characteristics are you looking for in sources? Any suggestions for title change?Granite07 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 05:19, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Name Change This should settle the discussion. The term 3D job has already been accepted by Wikipedia Wiktionary. http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/3D_job

Thank you to everyone for their inputGranite07 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 06:05, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Comment. The name should remain 3D's since the job is not what the focus is but what the 3D's are. I agree that additional text is necessary to place more focus on what dirty, dangerous and demeaning (difficult) is. As this is Wikipedia, someone with the right qualifications will add this material.Granite07 (talk) 06:13, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment. While I believe that this topic could indeed be notable (with a renamed article), none of the sources I see here can be verified to use the term as discussed in the article. The PDF source (from JR EAST Technical Review) doesn't use the term at all, so far as I can see, and I can't evaluate the other sources. Further, the reference to Television shows that document jobs of this nature (Dirty jobs, et al) might be synthesis or WP:OR, as it's unsupported by sources and seems to describe what the production of a particular series might imply. I'm neutral about deletion, but there are some significant issues to resolve if the article is indeed to be kept. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 13:21, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
    • JR EAST Technical Review, pp 32 subsection 4 128.12.169.7 (talk) 17:48, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment Made changes suggested by: Bradeos Graphon Βραδέως Γράφων, UltraExactZZ and RoninBK.

1) Book Reference (dictionary) - http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/3D_job

2) Expanded scope of article beyond laborers

3) Journal Article defining exact term "3D's" (accessible without proxy service) - [1]

4) Could not find use of term in television documentary (other than already cited), did find use in review of a movie [2]

hopefully this addresses everones concerns and allows this article to be removed from AfDs.

Thank You Granite07 (talk) 18:49, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Comment - if deleted, the title would be a very sensible redirect to The 3Ds. Grutness...wha? 01:50, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep but rename, please, and clean up the poor writing. Bearian (talk) 02:32, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak Delete per WP:NEO - I dont see articles about the term, not ones that use it. Corpx (talk) 08:25, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment good point, this indicates there is a need for a Wikipedia article. The term is widely used, commonly understood and well defined, yet very little literature exists about the term. 128.12.170.194 (talk) 00:39, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
      • That's a common misunderstanding. Wikipedia is not the place to create literature about a topic. That would be WP:Original research. If the term's not already widely used in the relevant literature, it's not notable and therefore doesn't belong in Wikipedia. Pburka (talk) 02:28, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
        • That’s well understood, but thank you for clarifying anyways. The term is widely used in relevant literature; the issue is that there is not very much relevant literature.128.12.169.7 (talk) 05:21, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JERRY talk contribs 05:42, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. —···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 06:05, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. The title 'neologism' might be slightly misleading; it's had very widespread use in the academic literature on labo(u)r migration since the early-1990s (it's difficult to pull out ref's to 3D's that refer to labour migration, but there are a lot), and refers to a well documented, well defined concept. Mostlyharmless (talk) 06:48, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Comment. I've tidied the article and added some more refs. It was a mess, and completely ignored international labour migration. It's now in a much better state to build on. Mostlyharmless (talk) 01:03, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Comment. Your changes are very good and highlight an important aspect of migrant labor that was absent. The page 3D is about voluntarily foregoing personal safety, working conditions and social status for a living wage not about exploited workforces and religious or cultural enslaving of a population segment. Low wages are a function of surplus labor not working conditions. Some work that is not dangerous or necessarly dirty is likely to have low wages due to its open availability to the widest possible labor segment.128.12.169.7 (talk) 18:53, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Comment Asked for a mediator to help determine if we can gain consensus before continued rounds of editing followed by deleting whole sections of the page, there is room for both views on the same page, or maybe there should be an article written to address low wage immigrant labor issues. Granite07 (talk) 21:51, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep I'm not sure we have the best title yet but the topic is certainly notable. I added this reference which cites many more sources: The Worst Jobs in History. See the entry on fuller, for example, to understand how easy we have it now. But there are many parts of the world which still work in this way. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:18, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep I've never heard of this 3D's before. I know the Japanese uses the term 3K to refer to the same thing, so the deletion is probably unnecessary. Renaming might help. -- Taku (talk) 07:44, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment There seems to be some confusion about 3D, this is an American Neologism derived from Asian concept. Generally refers to American blue-collar unionized workforce. We may need a second page to address other uses of the term.Granite07 (talk) 22:49, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Comment. This article is about the concept "dirty, dangerous and demeaning/demanding" not "dirty", "dangerous", and "demanding" jobs. The great majority of uses of the term (both academic and non-academic) refer to migrant workers, and of these the large majority refer to Asia. Mostlyharmless (talk) 23:21, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Comment Yes, that is exactly correct "dirty, dangerous and demeaning/demanding", thank you for pointing this out. You are also correct about the "great majority of uses of the term". This term has a specific connotation as an American neologism specific to an occupation that embodies all three of these conditions. 3D work results in higher pay without requirements for education or special skills, this is the true defining nature. As you have pointed out, internationally this definition is also true for migrant workers looking for higher pay. Granite07 (talk) 23:59, 10 February 2008 (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.