Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CAW Local 1973


 * 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. Kevin (talk) 10:11, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

CAW Local 1973

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

Fails WP:ORG, non-notable. Delete GreenJoe 17:37, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. This is a large union local. The article has over a dozen references. --Eastmain (talk) 18:13, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions.   —Eastmain (talk) 18:13, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that may be technically true but most of those "references" are publications of CAW itself, so they aren't qualified as secondary sources as required by policy on reliable sources. I would add to the nominator that per the guide to deletion "To avoid confusing newcomers, the reasons given for deletion should avoid Wikipedia-specific acronyms." Beeblbrox (talk) 18:17, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Merge/Redirect to Canadian Auto Workers Per notability guidelines for organizations "Local chapter articles should start as a section of the parent organization article. If the parent article grows to the point where it may be split to a new article, and notability can be demonstrated using the general notability guideline, then it can be split. " As mentioned above, there isn't really much in the way of reliable sources related to this chapter. Beeblbrox (talk) 18:29, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Merger is inappropriate in this case because both articles are quite long. Since notability for the local (and for other locals) can be demonstrated using the general notability guideline, it is best to maintain the separate articles. --Eastmain (talk) 19:34, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
 * This article does not need to be this long, as almost none of it based on reliable sources, and I don't believe it does meet the general notability guideline because of the lack of good sources. Beeblbrox (talk) 19:54, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Merger of all CAW Local articles to a CAW Locals article would be better. This would prevent the CAW article from increasing in length. DigitalC (talk) 04:48, 17 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment. The nominator should first have done a Google News search - see http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ned=us&q=%22CAW+Local+1973%22&btnG=Search+News and a Google News archive search - http://news.google.com/archivesearch?hl=en&ned=us&q=%22CAW+Local+1973%22&ie=UTF-8 Lots of references in both places. --Eastmain (talk) 21:27, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The onus on adding in references, is the person putting in the material, not me. You should know that by now. GreenJoe 21:50, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, now that they are found, do you withdraw the nomination? DGG (talk) 22:48, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Nope. It's still not notable. GreenJoe 23:12, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

well guess what? this article is an important piece of history with the recent news of plant closures to both the Transmission plant and lear plant (both of which this local represents). CAW Local 1973 will no longer exist. To add: regarding the sources, CAW Local 1973 is not a large local and is in a small town, thus there are not an overwhelming amount of sources. as to the credibility or notability, the sources used were some quotes from the CAW President and founding members of the local (who would know better). There is only so much research one can find in books. The deletion of this article is a grave mistake as it is going down in CAW's history as a strong local that has done it's job in looking out for wroker's rights and employment. One day someone might say what was the local 1973? with its closure this local has become an integral part of the CAW's history. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stamouva (talk • contribs) 19:15, 20 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.