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 Overtime as a natural ATD. Owen× ☎ 13:07, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retroactive overtime (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:GNG and is only sourced to WP:PRIMARY sources, without any secondary sourcing whatsoever. What's left is original research. It's impossible to even WP:ATD because there is nothing to merge at all, making it surprising how it lasted for so long. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 10:33, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Companies, and Economics. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 10:33, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law and Business. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:42, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Overtime. The article as it stands now is a lot of unverified text that is essentially unsourced (though I did just add a citation after rewriting the lede). The actual topic discussed is very narrow – it's about how payroll accountants calculate retroactive overtime in the United States – and doesn't merit a standalone article, especially given the lack of sources. Cielquiparle (talk) 05:30, 20 September 2024 (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.