Talk:Shirebrook

England Low‑importance

	England portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of England on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnglandWikipedia:WikiProject EnglandTemplate:WikiProject EnglandEngland-related
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

UK geography Low‑importance

	United Kingdom portal This article falls within the scope of WikiProject UK geography, a user-group dedicated to building a comprehensive and quality guide to places in the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you wish to participate, share ideas or merely get tips you can join us at the project page where there are resources, to do lists and guidelines on how to write about settlements.UK geographyWikipedia:WikiProject UK geographyTemplate:WikiProject UK geographyUK geography
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Derbyshire Low‑importance

The article on Shirebrook is supported by the Derbyshire WikiProject, which is a collaborative effort to improve the quality and coverage of Derbyshire-related articles on Wikipedia.DerbyshireWikipedia:WikiProject DerbyshireTemplate:WikiProject DerbyshireDerbyshire

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

More information:
/
	At least one photograph is included in this article
	This article has a map
	This article has an infobox
	This article has statistical information included

Large scale deletion of sourced content

I think this issue is worthy of further discussion. Here is the discussion as originally posted at the Teahouse on 28-29 April 2024. Fabrickator (talk) 01:23, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

When I first read this, didn't think much of the WP:NPOV objection, but I did wonder whether if was particularly appropriate to this article.

As it happens, there is an article on zero-hour contracts, and it's also mentioned on Frasers Group (i.e. Sports Direct).

Now I'm going to suggest that it's recognized that such contracts can reasonably be considered as objectionable. So does a person who's looking to learn about Shirebrook have a reason to be interested in working conditions there? I think that's at least an arguable case. Perhaps this is an area where there are poor economic conditions, and that's why they can offer work under such objectionable terms.

How much space to give it or whether there's another article that's more appropriate to discuss it in greater detail, I don't know, but I would suggest that it's reasonable for this article to at least raise this issue. Fabrickator (talk) 03:06, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for your deliberations. Articles can only contain what reliable sources have publicly-covered; arguing non-npov pre-supposes that contra-sources exist, and have been purposely ignored. This reaction, in itself, intimates lessened GF toward the content creator(s).

There may be no sources indicating biased press reporting, and/or company rejections of criticism. Another strapline springs to mind: The original GOOD news local paper. Mentions of zero-hour contracts prompt another topically-applicable term which is affecting UK - gig economy.

One general observation is that articles evolve by accretion; at the time, the multi-billionaire owner of Fraser Group was hauled before British parliament for specific reasons, prompted by acknowledged circumstances and ongoing press content. What was particularly germane to the article at the time may now benefit from a precis, but not, IMO, necessitating deletion from a drive-by, as it was, and still is, part of history. The drive-by also visited in September 2021.

I visited Shirebrook in February for the first time in ten years, briefly calling in at Sports Direct retail premises/Fraser group headquarters; to borrow a quote from Janet Street Porter, it's like "an international airport", so the scale of operations is pertinent to inclusion in the article.--82.13.47.210 (talk) 05:47, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

82.13.47.210 ... Unless I'm misunderstanding, the issue isn't whether Sports Direct should be in the article, but whether the mention of zero-hour contracts was pertinent and if so, how much coverage should it get. Fabrickator (talk) 20:53, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shirebrook is specifically mentioned in conjunction with the Sports Direct zero-hours violations. Here are a couple of pertinent stories:

Sports Direct fails to meet 2016 pledge on working conditions

Deindustrialisation, Deregulation, and Division: The Case of Shirebrook and Sports Direct

Fabrickator (talk) 14:44, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]