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The result was Speedily kept as withdrawn by nominator. (Non-admin closure) by Intelligentsium 01:32, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

SEIU Local 1 Canada[edit]

SEIU Local 1 Canada (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

An IP address has been complaining for some time now that this article misrepresents the subject in a negative POV. The IP claims to work in some capacity for the organization that this article pertains to, and so has been hesitant to edit article directly. They claim, "This article remains an attack page with a lot of untrue and negative information on SEIU." My own past involvement has been to remove additions like,"The union president can be found on the golf course most afternoons..." Things like that. It is a poorly sourced article in its current version. Hamster Sandwich (talk) 01:03, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep - This article needs help, but I don't think AfD is the place for it. If the intro sentence is accurate, and this organization is the largest local trade union in Canada with 40,000 members, then I think that the notability of the subject is clearly established. Therefore, the article should be kept and cleaned up. If you're having problems with vandals or with IP's repeatedly inserting original research and unsourced claims, then WP:RFP would be the place to go to request semi-protection of the article, to prevent IP's and new users from editing it while it is being cleaned up. SnottyWong talk 02:09, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I do not think that this is a matter of semi-protection. I do however agree that SEIU Local 1 Canada needs to be radically changed to survive as an article. Thus I posted the debate here. The sources that are listed just don't support the article as it stands. No secondary sources are forthcoming, and the IP that asked for the articles deletion claims to be to close to the issue to edit. I presume this to mean that they won't even supply secondary sources. My main problem are the sources listed, and the lack of verified sources for a preponderance of the material presented there. - Hamster Sandwich (talk) 02:19, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I fully understand your points, but deletion is not the solution to such problems. Per WP:ATD, If the page can be improved, this should be solved through regular editing, rather than deletion. I'd suggest putting a few tags at the top of the article so that readers know that the article might not be NPOV, and then start cleaning it up. If you run into resistance from anonymous editors, seek semi-protection. Also, I don't think that it's wrong for someone who is close to the subject to provide secondary sources which prove that parts of the article are false. SnottyWong talk 13:26, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am beginning to see your point, and I hadn't fully considered the point that Ray makes below about merging, although,on the other hand, it is a union with 40 000 Canadian members. I'll let this ride one more day, see what happens, and then gut the damn thing to a stub, using the union homepage as the only ref. Terrible. Hamster Sandwich (talk) 23:37, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep A trade union with 40,000 members? Not really an issue. Yes, the article needs fixing. No, that's not AFD's job. At worst, if sources aren't forthcoming, we might merge to the main SEIU article - in any case, this is not a deletion matter. Ray^Talk 19:39, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge - I recently merged&redir'd local 1000 into the main SEIU article, and I think the same should be done here, trimming the fat along the way. It would be helpful to know exactly what is considered the attack part from the IP that claims to work in some capacity for the organization. Although the IP should bear in mind, the Wiki is not censored. Exit2DOS ^{• Ctrl • Alt • Del} 01:33, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm linking to the note that the IP left on my talk page [1]and more recently, this [2] one. You have to enter the last entry on that history. I had received something similar in the past few months from them, and at that time I attempted to "parse" down a lot of unsourced and questionable material. The IP complaint goes to the heart of thing, so please read it. Also, Erwin's excellent bot is going around notifying the principal editors on the SEIU article. I have a feeling this will be resolved sooner, rather than later. Thanks - Hamster Sandwich (talk) 01:43, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Some of what is on that article, may be the darkest of the locals history, but it is still encyclopedic. The best warning that I feel the IP can heed is Be prepared to meet halfway. If merged, there will be a lot more Eyes on the Article, so I think crudcreep would best be minimized via that route. I affirm my Merge & redir Exit2DOS ^{• Ctrl • Alt • Del} 02:04, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - I agree with Ray - it's clear that an article on a 40,000 member union is appropriate. I also agree the material is problematic, but that's a different issue.--Bookandcoffee (talk) 16:55, 26 November 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.