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. As was already the consensus before the relist. Sandstein 13:14, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Course of employment

[edit]

[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)

Longstanding unsourced stub, apart from the unwikified attribution to a Law Dictionary. Mattg82 (talk) 22:51, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Mattg82 (talk) 22:51, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article does not establish the subject's notability.TH1980 (talk) 02:25, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice to creating a proper article on the subject. It looks like the topic is notable and the subject of multiple scholarly articles:

Arising Out and in Course of Employment, 4 Va. L. Reg. 804 (1919).
Aharon Barak, The Servant's Course of Employment, 1 Isr. L. Rev. 8 (1966).
Ray A. Brown, Arising out of and in the Course of the Employment in Workmen's Compensation Laws--Part IV, 8 Wis. L. Rev. 217 (1932).
Marvin E. Duckworth, Injuries Arising out of and In the Course of the Employment, 30 Drake L. Rev. 861 (1980).

There are others, but these are the few I've bothered to look at the text for to confirm the treatment goes beyond mere title. (A whole bunch more are simple case notes, discussing a then-recent case or two that construe the term; those don't carry much weight for me.)

But in its present form it's just a dicdef, and someone who cares more than I do would need to do some substantial writing to make it an actual article to meet the "Keep" threshhold. TJRC (talk) 22:48, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the issue is significantly notable, but agree the article currently lacks sources. As one example of notability, Australia's High Court had an interesting case a few years back where the issue was considered, in the context of a public servant who had claimed workers compensation when a light fitting fell on her while she was having sex with a friend in a motel booked for her overnight by her employer for a work trip. She succeeded all the way up to the High Court, which overturned the previous decisions and found it was not in the "course of employment". Bookscale (talk) 12:52, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Per nom - Article is not supported by reliable sources. - MA Javadi (talk) 23:23, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - the issue is more whether they are available (which they certainly are). Bookscale (talk) 01:03, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Please remember, AfD is not used for cleaning up articles. It's used to explore whether an article meets Wikipedia's guidelines for inclusion. Relisting this to allow for more discussion. Bookscale expresses that there might be more sourcing out there and TJRC "voted" for delete, despite finding sources and expressing interest in seeing it deleted for a new article to be written. Please review from a stand point on if you believe it meets our guideline for inclusion, rather the article quality. If there is room for improvement, we can even consider draftifying it or moving it to a userspace for clean up and improvement. Thank you!
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 17:58, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per WP:TNT and WP:CHEAP. This not a good enough foundation to write a readable article. Something could be written, but this is an unsourced essay. To avoid losing the article history, I suggest redirecting to Respondeat superior, which is the ultimate consequence of this doctrine, rather than Agency law or Employment law. Thank you for re-listing. Bearian (talk) 18:04, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm sticking with my "Delete" !vote, above. A redirect to Respondeat superior would be inappropriate. That doctrine is about when acts of an employee can be attributed to the employer. The usage in this article — and more importantly, in most published sources discussing it — is about a very different concept, about when an injury is sufficiently work-related to be covered by worker's comp insurance. If we must redirect, workers' compensation is a better target, but since it has very little on the concept being redirected, that's not likely to be a helpful redirect either; WP:PLA.

Missvain, to clarify why my !vote is for "delete" despite the topic being notable: the only thing worth keeping in the article is the title. Yes, it's a notable topic, and there could be an article written on this notable topic. but this article isn't it. My thinking is along the lines of WP:TNT: "if the article's content is useless (including all the versions in history) but the title might be useful, then delete the content to help encourage a new article." TJRC (talk) 23:55, 23 January 2020 (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.