Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2008-09 Screen Actors Guild 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 was   no consensus. Further renaming and/or merge discussions can take place at the article's talk page. Cirt (talk) 02:01, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

2008-09 Screen Actors Guild strike

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

First, it's just a proposed strike with no vote having happened yet. There is also pushes to cancel the vote entirely. Second, even if the article were to be kept (which I don't think it should be), the name would have to be changed since it didn't start in 2008 and it's just a proposed strike. Almost every major union in the country talks about a strike when their current deal is near expiration or has expired and they get press coverage. Why this article wasn't deleted back when it was created in June is beyond me, but there is no need for an article just for a proposed striker since this happens every time the SAG contract is up for renewal.  TJ   Spyke   18:18, 4 January 2009 (UTC) . The article has only been viewed 26 times though.-- Patton t / c 19:09, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment I really doubted this would be notable when I set out for sources however it appears has been reported by many news services;   http://filmtvindustry.suite101(dot)com/article.cfm/hollywood_stars_oppose_strike
 * Everytime the SAG contract expires there is a lot of publicity about a possible strike. Same deal (to a lesser extent) with other major unions like the UAW. If a strike does happen, I agree it would be notable. Right now though its just a lot of speculation. I think a lot of people realize this, and maybe that's why there have been so few people checking out the article.  TJ   Spyke   19:30, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - well, seemingly there's a planned strike, whether happening or not it is pretty notable since it has far-reading impact. Wandering Courier (talk) 20:50, 4 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep - In today's Google news search under a specific search of "SAG strike", there are 207 current articles: http://news.google.com/news?client=safari&rls=en-us&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&um=1&tab=wn&q=%22SAG+strike%22&scoring=n. There should absolutely be an article on this topic and I STRONGLY DISAGREE with user:TJ_Spyke. However, I do support a "crystal ball" tag (which currently exists), as the event has not yet happened. DanielVovak (talk) 22:26, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * And what potential name? "Potential 2009 Screen Actors Guild strike"? Because that's what it is. And what happens if the vote results in them choosing not to strike? If they choose not to strike and reach a new deal, this will be brought back up again (assuming the article gets kept now).  TJ   Spyke   22:31, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Some would argue that there already is a strike: http://www.shellypalmermedia.com/2009/01/04/sag-vs-amptp-a-zero-sum-game/. There is certainly a work slowdown occurring: Intl. Cinematographers Guild President Stephen Poster has already called the SAG non-strike a "slowdown":http://www.variety.com/article/VR1117988288.html?categoryid=18&cs=1. Until SAG accepts a contract there is a strike occurring, even if it is a de facto strike. At a minimum, there is a civil war occurring within SAG, though I am confident there will be an official strike. The word "potential" is not accurate because it already is somewhat occurring. DanielVovak (talk) 23:35, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * There is a difference between slowdown and strike. Also, that source doesn't say there is basically already a strike. It talks about the conflict within SAG (some high profile actors supporting a strike, other high profile actors objecting to a strike) and talking about some of the issues at stake. There is not a strike right now though.  TJ   Spyke   23:39, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions.   -- Raven1977 (talk) 01:38, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge to Screen Actor's Guild for now, until a strike happens. There is no strike, as there has been no strike authorization by the SAG members.  The article even calls it a "possible strike," meaning that this article violates WP:CRYSTAL as it is definitely not almost certain to take place.  There is no contract, but there is no strike either, and it's not certain that they'll get authorization before a new contract is negotiated. ColorOfSuffering (talk) 06:35, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete due to the strike that is the name of the article not existing. Stifle (talk) 14:03, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. The events surrounding this industrial dispute are probably still notable enough for an article, even if they do not eventuate in a strike. It may end up needing to be renamed, though.--Pushsense (talk) 04:51, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete/Rename. The strike is not yet a fact. Although all the issues being discussed are relevant to this moment of the industry, it should not be called a strike yet. The issue could be solved by merely renaming. Also, by calling it a strike before it actually is one Wikipedia might be seem as taken a side and supporting the idea -- which is relevant since this is currently on vote right now. All the information may remain here, once properly titled. Kosmonauta (talk) 06:56, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep (possibly rename) - this article is a rare exception to WP:CRYSTAL, as at the moment it's widely expected that the strike will happen. Even if it doesn't, the article is probably still worth keeping under a different title, as the prospect of a strike alone has generated a significant amount of coverage in reliable sources. Terraxos (talk) 02:28, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep but rename since the anticipation/prospect of the strike has sufficient notability to qaulify under WP:EVENT guideline ("A news event is notable if it receives significant, continual coverage in sources with national or global scope."). Article naming issue can be handled on its talk page. Abecedare (talk) 02:52, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Fails WP:CRYSTAL and for that ma$tter the death of Bush's cat is far more newsworthy than this article is, having been reported around the world, but we don't seem to have an article on that event yet. -Yupik (talk) 01:34, 10 January 2009 (UTC)


 * 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.