Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Forced retention

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 redirect‎ to Non-compete clause. If there's anything an editor wants to merge, they can do so editorially at their own discretion from the history behind the redirect. Daniel (talk) 20:31, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Forced retention

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

This does not look right as the last example is about an army and obviously an army is not a company. I don't see how anyone in a democracy could be forced to stay in a company except in wartime. Chidgk1 (talk) 17:10, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Chidgk1 (talk) 17:10, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This didn't even require any thought. Nom's argument is basically WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Industrial Insect (talk) 19:36, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Have you read the article? Chidgk1 (talk) 19:43, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. No such thing in business, except possibly in a dictatorship. Military retention is a viable topic, but this article has very little to do with it. Clarityfiend (talk) 11:08, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:38, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I think this is a valid concept. We aren't talking about physical force here, but rather about economic pressure: employment contracts that keep people from accepting employment with a competitor have the effect of forcing retention, unless the employee is prepared to do without an income. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:28, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Non-compete clause covers that, and people can switch fields so as not "to do without an income". Clarityfiend (talk) 11:27, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment We already have a well-sourced article Slavery in the 21st century Chidgk1 (talk) 07:14, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 07:26, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge ~~to Employee retention~~. Redundant, describes Employee retention, Non-compete clause and Golden handcuffs in a single article. PaulT2022 (talk) 23:52, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No objection to merge to any related article. PaulT2022 (talk) 05:36, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Non-compete clause. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 08:56, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Looks like everyone has a different idea about what to do with this. Does anyone want to second one of these merge suggestions, or no?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 03:12, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to non-compete clause. The employee retention article is terrible itself. Golden handcuffs seems more about carrots, whereas the article in question is more about sticks. DMacks (talk) 05:44, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What is there worth merging? Clarityfiend (talk) 11:58, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There may not be anything. But to the extent there is that is relevant... DMacks (talk) 14:47, 29 October 2023 (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.