Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wisconsin Education Association Council

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. (X! · talk) · @233 · 04:34, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wisconsin Education Association Council[edit]

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

Appears to be a non-notable local affiliate of the NEA. Only a few passing mentions in some local media when spokespeople make a comment (see google news results), but certainly nothing approaching significant coverage. The article itself seems to get most of it's content verbatim from the official website. -- Lear's Fool (talk | contribs) 08:52, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nominator. -- Lear's Fool (talk | contribs) 08:53, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - a Google news search reveals 60 real news articles on such items as its lawsuits, the Race to the Top, school funding, and charitable work in legitimate periodicals. See also Bing. Bearian (talk) 00:34, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I having trouble seeing past the first 10 results on that google news search, but they all appear to be "spokesperson for the WEAC said", and that sort of thing. They may be in reliable sources, but to me they appear to be only passing references to the organisation, and not significant coverage. Given none of them do much else than tell us that this union exists, they don't help it qualify for notability. Seeing as the only sources (that I've seen, anyway) that give us any information about the subject are first party sources, I think there are verifiability problems as well.

Still, if there is some significant coverage hiding in those results I can't see, I'd be more than willing to add them and change my !vote. -- Lear's Fool (talk | contribs) 00:58, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I'll try to work on it over the weekend. If I don't get enough reliable sources, then I'll chnage my mind! Bearian (talk) 18:10, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:36, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This "non-notable local affiliate of the NEA" is the major teacher's union in the state of Wisconsin and is pretty much the teacher's analogue to the state Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction. Considering what could have been written (the "every kid deserves a great school" campaign they push on the entire state including during Packers games) this is a pretty neutral article describing the breadth of the union and a short history of it. Nate • (chatter) 08:08, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I still don't see how it satisfies the notability guidelines though. I have looked very hard, and have found no independant sources that can attest to any of the non-trivial information currently in the article. As I mentioned, it all seems to be from the union's own website. I'm not questioning the neutrality of the article, I'm saying that unless a topic has recieved significant coverage from sources other than itself, it's probably not notable. -- Lear's Fool (talk | contribs) 09:48, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. As a state resident who hears about WEAC everyday and knows their agenda I will try to fill it out more with notability of their political influence in Madison and how they lobby. I would also try to search for news involving WEAC and the Milwaukee Public Schools, which is a heavy issue right now due to the controversy of the state wanting to put it under mayoral control. Nate • (chatter) 10:29, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, any references would be great. Like I said, I've looked, but if you find some I'll be perfectly happy to change my !vote. -- Lear's Fool (talk | contribs) 01:01, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP,there are many references to this on the internet and more than others similar on Wikipedia. (Milestokilo (talk) 12:57, 15 February 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Thanks, I've started to source it. Bearian (talk) 21:19, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep major union. DGG ( talk ) 05:09, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —TerriersFan (talk) 21:42, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - major, news-worthy union. TerriersFan (talk) 21:48, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:28, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:28, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per above three editors.--Baron Larf 05:02, 21 February 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.