Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of trade unions in Indian tea gardens

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) Bejinhan talks 03:13, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of trade unions in Indian tea gardens

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

Only red links. No references. The only purpose of this list seems to be in linking to the political affiliations MakeSense64 (talk) 14:22, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:43, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:44, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article needs references, but that's not a reason to delete it. A quick search yielded some sources which I added and showed the subject is clearly notable. --Pontificalibus (talk) 18:21, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As stated the article can be improved and needs references. But the subject is notable, and I cannot understand the actual rationale behind the nomination. providing information on the political affiliations of the unions is highly relevant (and to clarify, this is by no means controversial in an Indian context). Also, the point of red links is to foment participation in Wikipedia in creating new articles. --Soman (talk) 21:32, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. I agree with Pontificalibus just because an article has no references doesn't mean it's not notable.-Breawycker (talk to me!)
Comment - Nobody is saying that the Indian tea gardens themselves are not notable. But that doesn't imply that there is reason for a "List of trade unions in Indian tea gardens" article, especially since it are mainly red links. Generally red links are avoided in lists, but if we remove them then all we will have left here is a list of polical parties in India. MakeSense64 (talk) 10:36, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nah, red links are more often made in lists as a way to organize article creation on the part of active Wikiprojects. Since the article was created by an amazingly prolific and substantial contributor to a number of related wiki-projects, including India and Labor, it is obvious the existence of red links is not a reason to delete. If it were some random editor who never edited in this space I would be less inclined to keep it in the current state, but Soman is a star wikipedian and I see no reason to belief these redlinks will remain for long. If they do, we can unlink them.--Cerejota (talk) 02:10, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep List is clearly notable, even as per nom, other issues raised are editing, not inclusion, issues. If the nominator or anyone has a problem with red-links or lack of references, I invite them to create the articles and find the sources, rather than just nominating for deletion.--Cerejota (talk) 02:13, 7 August 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.