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. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 03:12, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Effective unemployment rate (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

I wish to assert my right to challenge and remove unverifiable material. As far as I am concerned it's entirely unverifiable because I don't even know whose definition it's supposed to be. Is it perhaps just an American thing, or is it a global concept? RenegadeMonster (talk) 11:03, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. While this isn't sourced at the moment, a glance at google tells me it would be possible to replace this material with a well-sourced article with this title.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 11:34, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, that would be great. In the meantime can we please remove this unverifiable material? RenegadeMonster (talk) 12:01, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Sure, go ahead. Replace it with a stub. You don't need AfD to remove unverifiable material, see WP:BURDEN.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 12:25, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep As S Marshall; nom please feel free to hack it to pieces  Chzz  ►  15:22, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Unemployment#Limitations_of_the_unemployment_definition until someone is ready to add content and make it a worthwhile article. Hard to stubify that which barely has content. Usrnme h8er (talk · contribs) 16:13, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • And if the someone lacks the privilege to create an article? Stubs draw attention, allow anyone to add material, and are a well-tested fixture of Wikipedia. – 74  05:00, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Note discussion at Talk:Unemployment#Effective_unemployment_rate Power.corrupts (talk) 20:15, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Stub unless a suitable merge & redirect target exists. – 74  05:00, 9 March 2009 (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.