Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Starbucks Workers Union (2nd nomination)

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) Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:06, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Starbucks Workers Union[edit]

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

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

Fails WP:NORG. References are either affiliated with subject (the IWW/Starbucks union websites) or aren't sufficiently independent (the many profiles of the union that are generally just interviews with the union members). Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 22:10, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 22:10, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 22:10, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it easily passes WP:GNG with stories about the organization itself in the Boston Globe, Seattle Times, New York Times, and Wall Street Journal to name a few. A quick search of newspapers.com also reveals a number of other sources in newspapers across the United States. There is also a book written about it by Staughton Lynd and numerous other mentions of varying levels of depth available via Google Scholar.--User:Namiba 03:37, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

GNG isn't applicable here. As an organization these sources have to abide by SIRS. Most of them aren't independently written and are just profiles or otherwise insignificant. Brief mentions don't satisfy WP:SIRS. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 07:27, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

For that matter, anything by Straughton Lynd automatically fails the "independent" part of SIRS as he has very strong ties to the IWW (having given a speech to their general assembly). Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 07:37, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Chess, It's normal for scholars to be also involved in topics they research. If you think the source is not reliable, I suggest taking it to WP:RSN first. If there is consensus it is unreliable, then we can remove it and it will carry much less weight here. But for now, I'd call it reliable (a book written by an academic expert on the topic). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:53, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Piotrus: Didn't say it was unreliable, just that it doesn't meet the criteria for showing the Starbucks Workers Union is notable. WP:SIRS is very clear here. The source must be completely independent of the article subject to prevent organizations from gaming the system. Since the SWU is an IWW union and Straughton Lynd is very associated with the IWW, the source does not satisfy the "independent" criteria of SIRS. While I'm sure it is a reliable source, it is not an independent one. If you don't like that policy, I suggest you take it up at the talk page at WT:NORG to get it changed. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 06:20, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Chess, NORG as usual focuses on commercial companies and fails when it comes to non-profits. SIRS is intended to prevent paid-for shills from creating fake 'independent' sources. Anyway, let's examine this case in more detail. You claim "Straughton Lynd is very associated with the IWW" but right now his article doesn't mention any such ties? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:34, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Piotrus:NORG is applicable to unions regardless of your feelings on the matter. Unions can pay for shills just as much as any other organization. While I can pretty clearly see that this AfD is going to result in a keep because the unwritten rule is that NORG is really just meant to target organizations that endeavour to turn a profit and the policy is only written the way it is to give the illusion of fairness, I believe that the policy should be enforced the way it is written which is why I opened this AfD.

On Lynd's association with the IWW, I point out these excerpts of a speech he gave to the IWW general assembly [1] he cowrote a book with one of the founders of the Starbucks Workers Union (Daniel Gross, his SWU affiliation given a single sentence in the linked article). [2] And while I cannot find a source saying Lynd has ever worked for the IWW or is a member (never said he was), I'd say giving speeches on behalf of the IWW and writing books with IWW members that are considered essential IWW literature, originating the "Solidarity Unionism" philosophy of the IWW [3] certainly make him a fellow traveler at the very least.

In all honesty none of that really matters though because after taking another look at the book you've linked I've realized that it's the exact book Lynd wrote with Daniel Gross. So I'm pretty sure there's no way in hell a book cowritten by the founder of the Starbucks Workers Union satisfies the "independence" criteria of SIRS and probably doesn't even satisfy the GNG criteria if it was applicable here. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 07:33, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A search with the phrase "Starbucks Workers Union" produces many ,many mentions in Google books:

Solidarity Unionism at Starbucks Daniel Gross, ‎Staughton Lynd · 2011
Two full pages in the book Starbucks by Marie Bussing-Burks · 2009
Z magazine, volume 2
Four pages in the book Subverting the Present, Imagining the Future: Class, Struggle, Commons
Business Week article
Discussed in Imaginal Machines: Autonomy & Self-organization in the Revolutions of Everyday Life by Stevphen Shukaitis
also see mentions in Teen Vogue, Huffpost and SeattlePI.com.

I'll stop there. Possibly (talk) 03:59, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Brief mentions don't satisfy WP:SIRS and neither do profiles written based off of the unions pamphleteering or interviews. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 07:27, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Seems like there is a coverage on several pages in this book, for example. And a few paragraphs in this one. Seems to pass NORG/GNG.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:51, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

First book was written by Daniel Gross, founder of the SWU [4] and the second fails the significance criterion of WP:SIRS. It covers Starbucks far more than the union and limits its coverage of the SWU to three paragraphs, one of which is almost entirely composed of a verbatim quote of the SWUs website.Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 07:40, 16 February 2021 (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.