Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CAW Local 111


 * 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. John254 00:37, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

CAW Local 111

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

To be blunt, this article fails everything. It doesn't cite sources, it's not notable, it's just plain spam. Delete GreenJoe 01:33, 14 June 2008 (UTC) Wow. Never though I'd see the day when a union local would get a keep. Changed my mind. Good find on that, Eastmain. -- Dennis The Tiger  (Rawr and stuff) 18:46, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete, almost a speedy A7 (club). Individual locals of any union tend to not be notable. -- Dennis The Tiger   (Rawr and stuff) 03:44, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. This is a big local, and has more history than most, given the way that transit drivers in the greater Vancouver area voted to switch from the (U.S.-based) Amalgamated Transit Union to an independent Canadian union, and later to the Canadian Auto Workers union, and in light of the sometimes bitter history of negotiations and strikes (which the article doesn't discuss enough, and which ended the careers of some municipal politicians who took a hard line against the union). Individual locals of (say) an airline mechanics union may not be notable if they all represent workers doing the same work, but individual locals of a diversified union such as the Canadian Auto Workers can be notable, especially if they are quite large, represent a bargaining unit outside the traditional auto plant sector, or have a distinctive individual history. --Eastmain (talk) 17:32, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Then add that in, and cite sources. Right now it fails to establish notability. GreenJoe 17:35, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
 * An article that fails to establish notability is an article that needs improving. An article on a non-notable subject is an article that needs deleting. DigitalC (talk) 03:59, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Great, then improve it. Otherwise we should delete it. We shouldn't be keeping around inferior written articles that don't establish notability. And even then, I'm still not convinced that notability is established. GreenJoe 13:13, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions.   —Eastmain (talk) 17:32, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
 * See http://news.google.com/archivesearch?q=%22CAW+Local+111%22 for several newspaper articles about the local. --Eastmain (talk) 21:29, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Its verifiable and there are reliable independent sources Artene50 (talk) 01:31, 15 June 2008 (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.