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, WP:snowball. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:55, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Solidarity unionism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

This article has been around for a couple of years, and has been tagged as needing better references for most of that time. Two references are cited, one of which is to a news story which mentions the term once in connection with the Starbucks dispute, the other does not mention it at all. Google shows few hits. This appears to be a neologism which has failed to gain significant currency despite its promulgation via Wikipedia. The creator is evidently a political activist of some kind, his user name is "Smash The State", and a lot of his edits show signs of that agenda. It is possible that a suitable merge target may exist, but it's not entirely obvious to me where it should go. The small footprint on Google, mainly polemic, self-published material and passing mentions, does not encourage me to believe that this is a fixable article but I have been wrong before. Guy (Help!) 20:17, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep clearly notable given all the Google news hits [1] , Google books hits [2] and Google scholar hits [3]. Way to go Guy, block someone then nominate an article they created for deletion. There are words to describe people like you Guy only they violate Wikipedia policies. RMHED. 20:25, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lovely example of WP:ABF. Now read the rationale I gave above, and see if you can discern whether I actually thought that, you know, there might be an actual problem with the article rather than being an evil right-wing anti-union zealot on a rampage. Thisk you can improve it, reference it and make it less like a single-issue rant? Fantastic! Do it. Do it well and I will withdraw the nomination. Saying "but there are sources" on AfD without actually evaluating the sources, seeing if they genuinely support the content and attest to its significance (I did, and I was not convinced, many of them are self-published), and incorporating them into the article, is pointless and actively harms the project, because it means that under-referenced content stays without being repaired. You say it can be fixed, fine, I believe you; the fact is, it needs to be fixed, or got rid of until someone comes along with a version that complies with policy. There are few things more frstrating than crap content being kept in a crap state because someone says it might be posisble to make it less crap, don't you think? Guy (Help!) 12:18, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per the rich mines of references that RMHED found. Flopsy Mopsy and Cottonmouth (talk) 20:51, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Ditto what they said. --Nik (talk) 02:23, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep The nomination of this article is extremely dubious, as per RMHED's comments and the nominator's history with the article's creator. I would recommend withdrawing this nomination and reverting the block on the article's creator. Pastor Theo (talk) 02:40, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong DELETE - The article pushes an agenda, rather than seeking to provide information. New references could be included in an entirely new article, but the current one includes little that should be preserved.FeetsDontFailMeNow (talk) 02:44, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep. I'm concerned about the timing of this AfD, as being vindictive. RHMED has put the lie to the dearth of sources. ThuranX (talk) 03:01, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per RMHED's research, and add that I believe that this is a vindictive AfD by Guy. DuncanHill (talk) 03:39, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• And you are entirely wrong in that belief. Guy (Help!) 12:24, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Wouldn't be the first such attempt by you. DuncanHill (talk) 12:28, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Per WP:GHITS. I'm seeing nothing in the article, and if RMHED were serious about something other than creating drama, he might want to actually do some work outside of using Google. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 09:27, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep (Strong). The article can be expanded in future. Vindictive AfD. DropShadow (talk) 13:05, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. In addition to the arguments presented above, libertarian/syndicalist politics are underrepresented on Wikipedia and this is a useful addition. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 13:09, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

strongest of keeps- nom seems to have a strange intention, and some of the delete votes say the current article pushes a POV. That is not a valid argument for deletion, where we are considering whether the subject of the article is notable.[4] [5][6] If articles are in a poor state but notable, they can always be improved/rewritten. Sticky Parkin 15:14, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As to WP:GHITS, which people always use to try and justify anything, I use only google news, books, and scholar, which bring up more WP:RS as it highlights mentions in scholarly publications, and entire books on the subject published by presses which have their own article, such as Charles H Kerr Company Publishers. The discussions in books in particular give the idea serious consideration which we can include. I'm going out soon or I would improve the refs if it needs them, might later.Sticky Parkin 15:20, 7 February 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.