Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2006 custodial workers' strike

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 Keep. Yanksox 01:36, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2006 custodial workers' strike[edit]

Insignificance. College custodians going on strike is not like NYC transit workers going on strike in the dead of winter. This doesn't deserve its own article. DSJ2 23:26, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Insufficient reason for deletion. --Ezeu 00:31, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Good reason for deletion, in my opinion. I just dont see this as being notable Fledgeling 02:26, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable real world event. Much more encyclopedic than much of the pop culture trivia that is kept. Choalbaton 12:45, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for reasons listed above. Lawyer2b 13:46, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for many reasons. First, this is the first major action of a new union, SEIU, thus noteworthy. Second, original reason suggested has nothing to do (as far as I can tell) with wikipedia's deletion policy. I strongly feel that the suggestion to delete is an NPOV tactic. Third, this particular strike has gotten *national* attention (just read the article) and has become a testing ground for labor issues in the American south. I think there is no reason to discuss this further: the article needs to stay. 129.171.49.201 16:15, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for reasons listed above. This is not about my neighbor's dog, and wikipedia is not made of paper. Also, there is likely to be another editing flurry around 1 August 06 when the ballot counting starts. This issue is not yet history. Universitytruth 16:30, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Mistaken and misleading reason for deletion. John Edwards, among others, was involved in this, and may still be in the coming months. Nice try, DSJ2. 129.171.49.206 16:41, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The criterion of noteworthiness is not what happens in NYC. The move to delete is frivolous. 129.171.226.193 17:53, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Touché! :-) Lawyer2b 20:52, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. An important (in many ways) event and a well-done article. MiamiDolphins3 22:31, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. An article that is NN does not attract editors; this one clearly has, and several of us have all signaled that the article should be kept. This should be a no-brainer. 65.34.154.254 00:04, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per 65.34.154.254 Trampikey 13:42, 3 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.