Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Union violence

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. (non-admin closure) Acather96 (talk) 06:39, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Union violence

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

Two years ago, i registered serious concerns on the talk page for the article Union violence. During that two year period, not one person has responded on the talk page to defend the article, or to answer those concerns. I think i have been more than patient in waiting for assertions to be sourced, and context to be provided.

The article includes some twelve alleged examples of "union violence", with only one item in that list sourced.

The article includes names of presumably living persons, accusing them of committing very serious crimes, without any hint of reference.

Unfortunately, in the intervening two years, additional unsourced assertions have been added, and the page is worse than it was two years ago.

In my view, the effort to "balance" the page by adding examples of "management violence" simply confuses the issue. For example, some violence during labor disputes is caused by agents in the pay of the state. Is that rightfully "management violence"?

If it presents a seeming balance between "union violence" and "management violence", why is the article named for just one side of that equation?

Why is there so little context, explanation, sourcing, nuance?

Why does this article consist primarily of two questionable lists?

In my view, it is well past time for deletion of this deplorable article. Richard Myers (talk) 10:47, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This is pretty clearly an original essay. The term "management violence" is unfamiliar to me. If there are historic incidents of labor violence, they should be covered in articles relating to those incidents, just as the long history of violence by employers against organized workers is dealt with in Wikipedia. This article is potentially an encyclopedic topic as an offshoot of a section of trade union, perhaps, but the article as it is currently conceived and constructed is a hatrack and a failure. Carrite (talk) 14:56, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the actual concept is entirely unsourced, making this appear to be original research. The incidents listed are only partially sourced, but long lists of arbitrarily chosen examples are not useful, anyway. "Management violence" is not quite a neologism, but it's hardly a commonplace term, and it doesn't fall under the apparent remit of this article. I assume that this is intended to provide balance, but having two unreferenced concepts is not an improvement over having just one. An article on violence in trades disputes or something similar might work, or an expanded section on "violence" in the strike action article could be useful - and there is relevant material out there. But there's nothing worth merging from this article. Warofdreams talk 16:26, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - much improved; there is now referenced material worth keeping. I've still got some issues with the remit and some of the content, but they would be better addressed on the talk page than here. Warofdreams talk 12:54, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (and comment) - When nominated, this article was absolutely a sloppy article. Since nomination the article has been reformed, with weaknesses remedied. The article is now referenced. The concept of Union violence itself is referenced by way of citation in academia, & official government usage. Remni40 (talk) 19:23, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Im with Remni40 here, no major issues that could justify deletion.--BabbaQ (talk) 00:55, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article is now well-written and well-referenced. There are a few spots where more refs would be welcome, but that doesn't mean it should be deleted. MacMed^talk _stalk 02:56, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment — From the editor who nominated this article for deletion — this article was awful, and is now not too bad. There are still a few assertions which scream for references. However, my sincere compliments to those who have revised the article since its nomination. My first complaints about this article were made nearly four years ago. Those complaints had no impact whatsoever. I hasten to add, i've always disliked the Wikipedia deletion process. I guess this demonstrates that the deletion process can have a very positive result. Richard Myers (talk) 15:06, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Even with current referencing article is extremely US-centric, will always suffer from WP:BIAS IMHO. Per Carrite, agree this is WP:COATRACK. Moreoever the article also blurs violence committed by workers (labour/labor) versus violence committed by organised labour (viz trade unions). --Goldsztajn (talk) 14:53, 1 April 2011 (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.