Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Workers' self-management
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. Tone 12:09, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Workers' self-management[edit]
AfDs for this article:
- Workers' self-management (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
the 2 sources do not verify the majority of the article. WP:OR Darkstar1st (talk) 09:24, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep This article is on a notable concept/theory. I don't have much interest in this area, but it would be a shame to see it get deleted because of a lack of references. Maybe reduce to what can be verified. --NortyNort (Holla) 12:45, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't have the time to research and verify everything in this article but I did add a few references. Issues like this is why I cant stand when people insert information and don't give it the slightest reference. All of this could be from great offline sources. Also, well over 500 articles link to the this article.--NortyNort (Holla) 08:26, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Outstanding observation. Imagine having to remove links in more than five hundred other articles, if this article was in fact deleted. This one circumstance is in itself a powerful argument against deletion, in my view. My thanks to you for participating here. Richard Myers (talk) 19:08, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, absolutely Needs work, but this is an extremely important concept that is relevant and notable. It does not get attention in the mainstream media in the United States, perhaps due to economic bias, but it is of vital interest to millions of working people around the world, and not just in an academic sense. The concept is in use to a significant extent in many countries, including Spain, Argentina, and Italy. I live in Denver, Colorado, and i know people who practice workers self-management in their printing business. Yes, the article needs better sourcing. But deletion is out of the question. Richard Myers (talk) 15:59, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Where are the sources? On a topic like this, regardless of "media bias" sources should be easy to find. Add in what UncleG said and it raises a question or two about this article. WP:GNG etc.. Ryan Norton 18:18, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The nominator actually deleted one of the existing (and valid) sources, rather than fixing it, just prior to nominating this article for deletion. I am familiar with the source, and it is a good one, although the format of the footnote was rather odd. As for UncleG's input, i suggest visiting his more robust comment at a related AfD, which is here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Workplace democracy. I think in light of those entries, his intent is more easily appreciated. Richard Myers (talk) 18:59, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- i assumed the editor was the translator for the material sourced, apologies. who is the translator for this source i incorrectly deleted? Darkstar1st (talk) 20:35, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Briefly, Avi Lewis and Naomi Klein are among the foremost English language experts on Zanon. They are a very good source for this Wikipedia article, with a wealth of information available, including many articles they've written, and a major documentary that they have produced. I feel the source should have been upgraded rather than deleted. Fixing the source (in my opinion) would include linking to something of theirs that is more recent, and more detailed. Not sure what you refer to when you state that "i assumed the editor was the translator for the material sourced..." Richard Myers (talk) 20:54, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- "^ Hugo Moreno, Le désastre argentin. Péronisme, politique et violence sociale (1930-2001), Editions Syllepses, Paris, 2005, p.109 (French)"this is the link i deleted, but the version i found was not in english? if you have an english source please accept my apology, and my plea to update the link. Darkstar1st (talk) 21:03, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I was referring to this change, which appears to be your edit, just two minutes before you launched the AfD on this article for lack of sources. The Hugo Moreno source was not removed, and is still in the article. Appears that it does indeed need fixing or removal, and that you removed the wrong source/footnote. Richard Myers (talk) 21:59, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- "^ Hugo Moreno, Le désastre argentin. Péronisme, politique et violence sociale (1930-2001), Editions Syllepses, Paris, 2005, p.109 (French)"this is the link i deleted, but the version i found was not in english? if you have an english source please accept my apology, and my plea to update the link. Darkstar1st (talk) 21:03, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Briefly, Avi Lewis and Naomi Klein are among the foremost English language experts on Zanon. They are a very good source for this Wikipedia article, with a wealth of information available, including many articles they've written, and a major documentary that they have produced. I feel the source should have been upgraded rather than deleted. Fixing the source (in my opinion) would include linking to something of theirs that is more recent, and more detailed. Not sure what you refer to when you state that "i assumed the editor was the translator for the material sourced..." Richard Myers (talk) 20:54, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- i assumed the editor was the translator for the material sourced, apologies. who is the translator for this source i incorrectly deleted? Darkstar1st (talk) 20:35, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The nominator actually deleted one of the existing (and valid) sources, rather than fixing it, just prior to nominating this article for deletion. I am familiar with the source, and it is a good one, although the format of the footnote was rather odd. As for UncleG's input, i suggest visiting his more robust comment at a related AfD, which is here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Workplace democracy. I think in light of those entries, his intent is more easily appreciated. Richard Myers (talk) 18:59, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep There are 100's of ghits on the topic, and I suspect as a management article, will have plenty good sources. It is an important topic and Wikipedia is just the place for it, although don't care for it. scope_creep (talk) 20:48, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep A concept which is becoming more popular, and is likely to generate significant interest. The article needs to be improved, but that shouldn't influence the fact it needs to exist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by IainUK (talk • contribs) 19:53, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep This concept is key to worker cooperatives and many employee owned workplaces. The article is in need of improvement and sourcing, but these are not reasons to delete an article. Gobonobo T C 21:15, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep Per WP:SNOW Zazaban (talk) 22:52, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:46, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy keep - Worst challenge of 2010. One of the fundamental principles of Yugoslav Socialism from the late 1940s until the multinational republic rebalkaniized... Carrite (talk) 03:21, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Also Definite Keep as this is an important concept (like workplace democracy) which follows the post-communist party and anti-corrupt union movements in Italy, Germany, France and Spain in the 1960's through the 1990's. See George Katsiasficas' book Bold textThe Subversion of Politics"Italic textSee also, CLR James' concept of worker self-management as "everyday" socialism. It also has ties to the Argentinian workers' self-organizing movement recorded in a book called "Horizontality"... the Italian Opereia movement is well outlined in Toni Negri's book, "The Hammer of Dionysus" et.al. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.243.208.242 (talk) 02:15, 18 August 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.243.208.242 (talk)
- the article appears to be improving! the lede and theory section cold still use a source or 2. Darkstar1st (talk) 21:59, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- This page is for the AfD, not to discuss a few missing references. Anyway, I think consensus here is clear and the article lacking a source or two certainly doesn't qualify it for deletion. Such issues can be brought up on the article's talk page and maybe WikiProject Socialism would be interested in working on it.--NortyNort (Holla) 02:23, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- the article appears to be improving! the lede and theory section cold still use a source or 2. Darkstar1st (talk) 21:59, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep just for the record; sources are indeed out there. Ryan Norton 03:27, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- correct, a tag has been in place for over a year requiring action, yet none taken until this post, therefore a net gain. the article was not just missing a source or two, rather missing wp:standards, by a good ways, and for an extended period. whether or not there is consensus the topic is valid, the OR content needs work, or needs a rewrite. i am sure you/everyone will be pleased with a better article. @Ryan, thank you for the work you contributed here, please add the sources you found when time allows. Darkstar1st (talk) 05:15, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, unorthodox methods you have, but hey it worked. Zazaban (talk) 05:43, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- articles like these make wp an easy target for mudslingers, who do not bother to learn how to use wp. articles are rated, yet few both to check. removing a valid topic, poorly written is a harsh reality of wp. Darkstar1st (talk) 05:50, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, unorthodox methods you have, but hey it worked. Zazaban (talk) 05:43, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- correct, a tag has been in place for over a year requiring action, yet none taken until this post, therefore a net gain. the article was not just missing a source or two, rather missing wp:standards, by a good ways, and for an extended period. whether or not there is consensus the topic is valid, the OR content needs work, or needs a rewrite. i am sure you/everyone will be pleased with a better article. @Ryan, thank you for the work you contributed here, please add the sources you found when time allows. Darkstar1st (talk) 05:15, 19 August 2010 (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.