Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2024 Canada railway shutdown

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 was keep‎. I'm persuaded by Mr Serjeant Buzfuz's argument. But even if you dismiss claims of a U.S.-centric bias, there seem to be ample sources demonstrating notability. And Serjeant's point that news sources are accepted when they cover news stories like the attempted assassination of Donald Trump but rejected for this article, might be worth a fuller discussion on a policy talk page. Liz Read! Talk! 23:28, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2024 Canada railway shutdown

[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

2024 Canada railway shutdown (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)

Lockout lasted less than a day, with arbitration occurring right now. This information could be covered in a different article. Natg 19 (talk) 19:25, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Plus, there have been some developments, with a formal strike notice from the Teamsters with respect to CN, and statements by labour experts in the media that the federal government cannot order binding arbitration; it can refer the issue to the labour board, which then must determine if the situation warrants binding arbitration. i will update the article on this point. There's also the point that there is a political aspect: three premiers have spoken out on the issue, worried about the economic impact of the shutdown. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 20:57, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Latest news is that service has not resumed on CPKC; union is considering a constitutional challenge to the minister's direction for binding arbitration; the NDP, which has supported the Liberal minority government, has harshly criticised the referral for binding arbitration. This isn't over. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 23:23, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@ElijahPepe Yes there is, the trains are still shutdown, with no freight moving. This is still notable. - Evelyn Harthbrooke (leave a message · contributions) 02:11, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
i billion everyday has no impact? [1] Moxy🍁 15:23, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Point of clarification, please: what "broader labour dispute" article are you referring to, that you are proposing this article be merged with? Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 01:03, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
First, let's look at two recent news stories: Attempted assassination of Donald Trump and 2024 Democratic National Convention. Check out the references for those two articles: 500+ for the Trump article, 200+ for the DNC. And almost all of them are primary sources: news sources. There's the big three tv networks; there's the NYT and WaPo, plus major regional papers; there's YouTube, Slate, and other internet news sources; plus international news sources, like the BBC, the Guardian, the CBC, the Globe & Mail, just to name a few. I've not gone through them in full detail, but my skim shows that the references for these two articles are almost entirely news sources. But is anyone calling for those two articles to be deleted on that ground? Of course not. They are notable articles, and for current events like that, the news media are the natural, and likely the only source, to provide information about those notable events. So, articles on current events, based entirely on primary news sources, are not automatically deleted, as seems to be the theme of those who are calling for deletion here. Notability is the important issue for inclusion in Wikipedia, not that primary sources, such as news media, are the major sources used for an article about a current event, possibly the only sources available for a notable event.
Second, is the notability requirement met here? I think there is no doubt that it is:
  • As soon as the shutdown occurred, the Prime Minister of Canada advised the country that the federal government was "on it";
  • The premiers of three of the largest provinces expressed their concern over the shutdown, and urged the resolution of the issue, either by federal legislation or back to the bargaining table;
  • Moody's International estimated that the Canadian economy could lose $341 million dollars a day if the shutdown continued;
  • The two railways are the sole real transportation mechanism for Canadian manufactured products, agricultural products, mining products, to reach international markets, and Canada's economy is largely export-based;
  • Commuters in three of Canada's largest provinces (BC, Ontario, and Quebec) are having their lives disrupted, because the commuter trains have stopped running in some areas;
  • Less than 24 hours in, the federal Minister of Labour issued a directive to the federal Labour Relations Board, either directing or requesting that the Board consider ordering binding arbitration;
  • In response, the NDP, which is propping up the federal Liberal government, expressed their outrage with the interference with bargaining rights;
  • Although CN has tried to re-start its operations, the Teamsters have served a formal strike notice, that takes effect Monday (how that interacts with the Minister's directive is unclear);
  • CPKC has not been able to re-start its operations, as its workers have not returned to work;
  • Teamsters has indicated that they may bring a constitutional challenge to the minister's directive, rather than comply.
I honestly don't know what more could be said at this stage to establish notability of this article, at least from a Canadian perspective. This shutdown has already started to have effects nation-wide, could have a major economic impact, and could upset the political alignment that is keeping the federal Liberal government in office.
Third, so what is the problem here? Regretfully, I think it is systemic bias; American Wikipedia editors do not appear to take seriously an issue like this, happening in Canada. Wikipedia is supposed to be an international encyclopedia, not an American one, but when there are such dismissive comments about a major economic and political issue happening in Canada, I am forced to the conclusion that it is because American editors apply an American lens, and don't see the importance of this issue to Canadians, so don't think it should be in Wikipedia. But if Wikipedia is truly an international encyclopedia, with a mission to contain the world's knowledge, the question of notability can't be viewed solely with American eyes. If something is notable in one country, then the residents of that country should be able to come to Wikipedia and read an article about it, written from the perspective of the importance of that issue to them and to their country. Readers in that country shouldn't have to hope that American Wikipedia editors have concluded that something is notable. It should be sufficient that the editors from their own country have demonstrated notability. Moxy, I agree with the point that you made about international recognition of this story, but I don't think that is necessary for an assessment of notability. Residents of countries other than the United States shouldn't have to show notability at an international level to get an event written about in Wikipedia, just as residents of the United States don't have to show international notability for events in the United States to get an article about those events into Wikipedia. The notability of an event in a country other than the United States should not have to meet the gracious approval of American editors to be included in Wikipedia. To rebut systemic bias, there has to be a willingness by all editors to give particular weight to the views on notability of the residents of the country who are most affected by the events.
Conclusion - for all these reasons, I think this article clearly meets the test for notability and should be Kept. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 05:51, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I couldn't decide which ALLCAPS link to put here, so I'm going to do all of them. You may wish to familiarize yourself with WP:GNG, WP:ATA#CRYSTAL, WP:BLUDGEON, and WP:ASPERSIONS. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 23:17, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (below). What's especially salient for me is their last point about US editors not taking seriously events in other countries. US centrism is a serious issue on Wikipedia.-- Earl Andrew - talk 12:13, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as the railway shut-down also involves issues such rail safety and the issue of when is a service essential enough to justify suppressing the right to strike. TheTrolleyPole (talk) 00:54, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep While the shutdown was somewhat brief (Thu 22 to Sun 25 Aug 2024), it could resume depending on how legal efforts and negotiations play out. Implications for the rail industry, labor unions and employees in general, and the economy of Canada (and elsewhere) are significant. I would keep the article and revise it as developments occur. This does not seem like a 4-day "one and done" event. Indeed, the build-up prior to last Thursday could be better explained and set in context. Rail labor issues are usually long and contentious; recent agreements at CSX are the exception and not the rule.2601:645:4300:A990:D036:4B10:B9E7:B250 (talk) 03:33, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Extremely notable in Canada, first time both rail companies have had labour disruptions at the same time. -Andrew PNJJJ (talk) 02:29, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Respectuflly, @SportingFlyer, its not just news, it is causing an economic impact (as the trains still aren't fully up and running again and won't be for another few weeks), and the systemic bias argument is valid to an extent, as Wikipedia is edited by mainly Americans. This is an unreasonable reason for deletion. - Evelyn Harthbrooke (leave a message · contributions) 03:11, 30 August 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/2024_Canada_railway_shutdown&oldid=1243197737"