Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2006 custodial workers' strike (2nd nomination)

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 of the debate was no consensus = keep, discounting about 10 keep votes from seemingly the same person. — FireFox 10:28, 28 June '06

2006 custodial workers' strike[edit]

  • Comment: Is it fair to say that there is a rough consensus now? We have two delete votes (the nominator's, DSJ2 in bad faith, and Tychocat's, which is not in bad faith, but perhaps his concerns have been or could be addressed) and six keep votes from registered editors who have a history of editing multiple articles (MiamiDolphins3, Arthur Rubin, GRBerry, me, Ryulong, and Froomkin). This is not to mention all of the other keep votes from both recently registered and unregistered users. I would like to move that we go to speedy keep at this point. Any objections? Universitytruth 21:42, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would also like to hereby ask an administrator for advice on what to do if (when) DSJ2 nominates this article for deletion a third time without providing any new reasons, for I am sad to report that I expect this to happen. Thanks! Universitytruth 19:34, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete: Insignificance; run-of-the-mill strike does not deserve its own page DSJ2 14:37, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. The nomination was not completed correctly. As per WP:AfD, please use the {{subst:afd3 | pg=PageName}} template to list AfD nominations rather than adding a new section to the AfD list page. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 15:26, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Speedy Keep: This article went through a vfd just two weeks ago (nominated by the same user, User:DSJ2, and the overwhelming consensus (10-2) was to keep it. Based on that, I am removing his/her AfD nomination. MiamiDolphins3 20:24, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Changing my vote from "strong keep" to "speedy keep" based on the good arguments made by User:Universitytruth and particularly the fact that this is a frivolus AfD that was intended as sneaky retribution for the fact that User:DSJ2 was resoundedly shot down a mere two weeks ago on his/her last attempt to delete the article, after many users made very persuasive arguments on the article's importance, relevance and value. The deletion nomination should be speedily removed for these reasons. MiamiDolphins3 17:19, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment Please don't close an AfD unless you can show reasons for a flaw in the process or that the overwhelming consensus of last time will be repeated. Otherwise you're not closing it, you're just removing the AfD tags from the article. At the moment, all I can see is a disputed AfD, correctly listed as a second nomination. Unless there are a couple more opinions suggesting keep, or you are alleging a WP:POINT is being made by the nominator, this can wait for editors to decide to keep or speedy keep it. Be assured the article will not be deleted in a fit of absentmindedness or the like. Thanks. ➨ ЯЄDVERS 21:22, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I didn't see the previous AfD/VfD, but this reads more like a newspaper article than an encyclopedia article. Perhaps someone with access to the local papers could determine whether it is a newspaper article. If if it's not a copyvio, it needs to be trimmed to WP:Verified facts, and then we can see if there's anything left. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 23:23, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: There are no copyvio issues. This was a meticulously written and sourced article by many registered users, many of whom had different views on the issue, and it is a well-balanced, encyclopedic summary of one of the most important events in South Florida so far this year. The prior AfD discussion is available at [1], and you really should be reviewing that before casting a vote that can be taken seriously, as opposed to saying: "I don't know the history, I don't the issue, but here's my vote anyway." MiamiDolphins3 23:26, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflict)
    • On second thought, after reading the previous AfD (which should have been closed as "no concensus", rather than "keep"), trim and Merge (back) to University of Miami. I'm going to WP:Be Bold and rename the article to University of Miami 2006 custodial workers' strike, and try to maintain links. I doubt very much this was the only custodial workers' strike in 2006 to get national coverage. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 23:34, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Bravo! If I had known how to rename the article, I would have done so long ago. Thank you very much for fixing this. (That said, I would not advise merging back; it would take up too much space in the U Miami article.) Universitytruth 16:39, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • It should also be pointed out that only 2 or 3 of the 10 "Keep" votes gave a reason. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 23:34, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • However... Did you mistype? I would hate to conclude that you're misrepresenting a verifiable fact (namely that *most* of the keep votes provided reasons). Please reread the AfD page and then please comment on your mistaken claim. Thanks. Universitytruth 16:39, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's actually untrue also. The article was appropriately removed from AfD by an administrator following 12 votes and two weeks on that list, and of the 10 voting to keep the article, almost all of them offered compelling reasons for keeping it. A proposal to rename it is not unreasonable, but that is not the nature of the AfD nominator's argument, which he or she now attempts for the second time in less than a month. MiamiDolphins3 23:42, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Careful study shows that only 4 of the 10 gave reasons (ignoring "insufficient reason for deletion", and "for reasons listed above" (without further comment), and "an article thatis NN does not attract editors"), which is probably still enough for a "Keep" result, but is not a majority of the "Keep" "votes". — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 18:19, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Careful study shows that only 2 of the 10 said "keep for reasons listed above" or the like, without offering new arguments. My math says that 10-2=8 users who did offer reasons to keep. (If you discount the 3 you do, that leaves 5 users with new arguments to keep, and not the 4, 3, or 2 you've mentioned in your comments.) And I would not discount this reason several listed: that the motion to delete was frivolous, lacked ground, etc. That fully counts, IMHO. It's an important part of the process of protecting articles from frivolous VfDs. Universitytruth 21:46, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - noteworthy event covered in sufficiantly significant news media. Had the prior AFD been closed as a delete and then brought to deletion review it might well have been overturned. No consensus was a possible outcome given the number of IP participants, but so what. Either way, we are here now. The article is better than many I've seen. It cites sources, attempts NPOV, and is anything but a stub. I don't see any reason for deletion. GRBerry 02:22, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep: The same user who proposed the AfD several weeks ago, and lost, has not provided any new or relevant arguments for deletion. This is an attempt to disrupt wikipedia for a POV agenda, and DSJ2 should be dealt with accordingly. 65.34.154.254 16:34, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Speedy Keep This is a complete no-brainer. See previous AfD talk page for all the reasons to keep this article. Can someone advise at what point it would be appropriate to report DSJ2 for disrupting wikipidia to make a WP:POINT ? Universitytruth 16:43, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do see that User:DSJ2 was warned on his/her user page that repeated AfDs of the same article are disruptive and can lead to possible edit blocking, so I guess he/she's on notice. See: [2] MiamiDolphins3 20:13, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The nomination for deletion doesn't give any arguments of the sort that are asked for under wikipedia's deletion policy. Thus this vote shouldn't even be happening unless such arguments are given. The nomination is frivolous, which is why I changed my vote from strong to speedy keep.Universitytruth 15:58, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep: I am astounded that this is up for discussion at all. This user DSJ2 is just trying to push a POV; most likely someone who hated the strike so much he wants its history obliterated. This is a well-written article that is still of interest to many. And since wikipedia isn't on paper, what's the problem? This is a waste of our time. I hope an administrator will keep an eye on the Derek Jeter fan, User:DSJ2. 72.254.247.22 23:42, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Also question POV, and unverified nature of most of the statements in the article. Note that links all go to pro-strike sites. Yes, this was a local news story, but there's strikes every year in all sectors, and there's no assertion this strike is any different from any other. I would also request we all look at WP policies regarding assumption of good faith, and refraining from personal attacks. Tychocat 09:25, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • If you mean the three external links at the bottom, you should note that one link was to UNICCO's website (the anti-strike one) and two links were to separately organized pro-labor websites (one by faculty, another by students). This disproves your claim that "all" links go to pro-strike sites. If you mean the links embedded throughout the article, you should then note that many links go to UM administration responses (and these were anti-strike from beginning to end). I would like to assume good faith, but it would be great if it felt like you had read the article more closely. Also, it's not clear what you mean by the "unverified" "nature" of most of the statements... which ones? On a positive note: why does this strike have to be "different from any other" in order to merit an article? What are your criteria for determining this difference? Last note: this was more than a local event. It drew national attention and the involvement of Jonathan Edwards, Charles Steele, and others. This strike marked the SEIU's first establishment of a union in a historically anti-union city, and this has implications for new immigrants to the U.S. And this is why there was so much national attention. But anyone who's read the article knows this. Universitytruth 12:13, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I mean the three external links, of which the one anti-strike link goes to a passworded site which cannot be accessed by outsiders. Effectively, all the links do in fact go to pro-strike sites. Regarding unverified statements, most of the comments by management are unattributed, and certainly can't be verified through the reputed UNICCO website. But anyone who's read the article knows this. Tychocat 09:50, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Dear Tychocat, the UNICCO link was fully functional from the beginning of this article's creation until the strike settlement. Once the strike was settled, UNICCO decided to 'decomission' its site and password protect it. Surely, you aren't blaming the wikipedia editors for that, are you? Trust me, I wish they had left their site open. Meanwhile, feel free to tag statements you believe require citation. That would be a constructive way to improve an article. Universitytruth 12:02, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Dear Tychocat, please pardon my tone in my 22 June comment. I was exasperated with this second round of AfD, and it showed. Now, I wanted to ask you whether my explanation about the three external links was satisfactory to you. I would like to suggest that this article might use some improvements, but should not be deleted. See the discussion for why not. If you have remaining concerns, please post them here, and perhaps they can be addressed. Thanks much. Universitytruth 21:46, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep This was a notable event that affected not just UM, but the entire city of Miami. UNICCO workers did not only strike at the University, but also at MIA and at other locations that they were contracted in the city (in the best of my knowledge). It also appears to be a bad faith nomination from the discussion (I was unaware that the article had been put up for deletion already). Ryulong 22:09, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This was a historical strike which is likely to affect all labor in South Florida and university labor nationwide. If it's any indication, the significance of this strike is proven by the continuing persecution of the student activists involved, and the fact that various books and articles on it are in progress. 74.225.65.143 03:08, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This was a historic moment in South Florida. The entry on it in Wikipedia is an important document that should be preserved. 74.225.65.143 04:23, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep This strike was a model for cooperation among "contract workers" at the university, who were not employed by the university but by a contractor, faculty members who were employees of the university but without affiliation with any union, and students, who did not have any direct ties either to the contract workers or unions other than enjoying the services of the workers. The faculty and the students supported the strike because they recognized the need for corrective action based on the facts as already stated in this Wikipedia article. This strike with dramatic expressions of support by sympathizers, including a long hunger strike that led to hospitalizations, considerable press coverage that showed a highly visible strikers' camp site at the edge of campus along a major thoroughfare, was possibly the first of its kind for social action in decades and may encourage other unfairly treated groups of workers to seek corrective action for their grievances. The strike at the UM in 2006 is likely to become a major milestone in the reactivation of the union movement in the USA. 70.149.46.43 06:06, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The strike had a significant effect on thousands of people within and without the university community - not only the workers, but all the students who had their daily routines disrupted by demonstrations, all the faculty who had to make choices about whether to keep classes on campus, all the parents who were concerned about the credibility of a university that so resolutely fought to not treat its janitors with humanity, or who were just concerned about the strike's and its associated events' effects on their kids' educations - this strike mattered to many, many people. The question of whether or not it has any national or global significance does not make it worthy of deletion. Personally, I feel that it does have something of a national importance, since the allegiance of college and university students and faculty with the low wage workes on their campuses to gain better treatment for the latter seems to be a growing trend, of which the UMiami campaign as exemplary. --65.60.141.115 08:39, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: In addition to its significance nationwide and worldwide for the labor movement in general [google it and you will see press references in many nations and many languages] and for the unusual coalition of community, student, and faculty groups, the strength of a primarily immigrant workforce in a predominantly antilabor city is remarkable -- reminiscent of Cesar Chavez and the farm labor movement involving migrant workers. This strike will become one of the landmarks of a revitalized labor movement revolving around a largely Hispanic workforce that has come to dominate the lowest paid jobs and most exploited class in many urban settings. Hence this article will be a landmark reference point. 65.13.41.73 11:17, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep: Add your reasons here. Tuvulu 13:34, 23 June 2006 (UTC) This event was not only significant for all of South Florida including Miami, one of the largest cities in the US with the greatest disparity of wealth and non-wealth, but was also impactful throughout the US. The fact that 100% of these downtrodden workers were of color with the majority immigrants is very impressive. They stood up to one of the richest universities in the country with strong national political ties and were triumphant. This strike was reported on not only internationally but in national papers such as the Washington Post and the New York Times. It's simply not possible to sweep such an event under the rug.[reply]


(Edit conflict) On further reconsideration, Keep:. Although "Improper reason for deletion" in the previous AfD is false and not a reason to keep, the previous AfD appears to have been properly closed after all, as votes with actual reasons ran 4-1 or 4-2 for keep. That being said, it needs a POV tag. (I'll add one.) It seems clear there's enough material here for an article, and it's not inherently biased, so any dispute about the article should no longer be in an AfD. (I almost deleted Tuvulu's comment, which probably would have been a good thing for the article. If any of that were in the article, and likely to remain, I'd have to go back to delete, as strong evidence the article was inherently biased. I would suggest that he/she clean out his/her comments.) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 13:46, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep: This article documents a major event that impacted South Florida tremendously. It was more than just a minor strike, it was the beginning of a chain reaction that raised the awareness of workers' rights not only in the University of Miami community, but also throughout the nation as the story circulated the national news wires. The article carries enough detail and information to be kept online for the education of others, and should not be deleted.Ju-ju 16:55, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep: The argument for deletion is incorrect and biased as DSJ2 stated it was a run-of-the-mill strike. If you ask anyone from any side of the issue surrounding this janitor's strike, it was very unique in its form, scope, and other aspects. For one, unions do not exist for property service workers in Right To Work states very often, and certainly not in Florida. THis alone makes it history worthy, and also Wikipedia worthy. --Justiciaparatodos 18:26, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep: The claim that this is a run-of-the-mill strike is ludicrous. (Do we have those any more?) This was the make-or-break strike for the SEIU in South Florida, or more likely the whole state. The result is being used to leverage work actions in several other local universities and at least one local mall also. The way it was settled -- having a card-check ballot with a 60% super-majority requirement -- is also an important departure. (I should note, in case it's relevant, that I am a professor at UM.) Froomkin 23:08, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep! Dozens of University of Miami workers, students and faculty, as well as members of the wider South Florida community, risked their health by fasting and their jobs by protesting what I and many others believed to be unjust policies restricting the janitors' basic rights to unionize and make a living wage. You don't have to agree with that opinion to understand that this was a big deal that went on for many weeks and attracted the attention of prominent progressive politicians and clergy, plus national media coverage. It happened; it's history now and it certainly deserves its space in Wikipedia. Thanks for listening. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.8.173.160 (talk • contribs) 23:38, June 23, 2006 (UTC)

Strong Keep I am a professor at UM and followed the events closely. I can tell you that this strike was important to the entire university, not to mention the State of Florida. Many persons' lives were changed for the better. Many crucial issues were raised that students had to confront. For example, important ethical questions were addressed. This type of event should be preserved in writing, and should be readily available for other students and interested persons to review.//// Thanks. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 129.171.192.245 (talk • contribs) 18:40, June 26, 2006 (UTC)

Strong Keep: I have witnessed the events and they have been protrayed pretty weel in the article. 216.148.155.148 04:50, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. (1) Is this really less notable than some minor Pokemón character? Where's the harm to the encyclopedia in keeping this article? (2) It's a good article. I know that technically that shouldn't count of AfD, but it does to me, at least a bit. Herostratus 01:56, 28 June 2006 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/2006_custodial_workers%27_strike_(2nd_nomination)&oldid=1070556899"