Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Postville Raid


 * 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; article cleaned up really nicely. Disclaimer: Closer had suggested deletion. &mdash; Coren (talk) 23:38, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Side note - nominator came around to the position of keep after the article was cleaned up NuclearWarfare contact me My work|undefined 00:06, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Postville Raid

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

My G12 speedy delete was declined, but I still believe this is a blatant copyright infringement. So, I'll hand it off to you guys. NuclearWarfare  contact me My work 06:33, 19 August 2008 (UTC) Withdrawing nomination now that it has been cleaned up. Anyone want to perform a close? NuclearWarfare  contact me My work 16:51, 19 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete, verbatim recreation of previously speed-deleted Postville Iowa Raid (Agriprocessors Kosher Meat Plant). Cached version of deleted page here. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 06:49, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. But the reason it was deleted, actually does not reflect what is written. This isn't an attack, nor is it a BLP concern.  Syn  ergy 06:57, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Speedy; it's still a poorly sourced hatchet job. Maybe an article can be made out of the event, but this is not it.  Note that an attack page needs not have a BLP as subject to be an attack page.  &mdash; Coren (talk) 12:31, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Coren: Would you care to elaborate on why this is an attack? I may just be missing the obvious at the moment, but this looks like the straight reporting of events. Could not this be solved by renaming the article and other editorial adjustments?  Syn  ergy 12:35, 19 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment I'm not finding a verbatim source for the text here, so I can't document a copyright violation. NuclearWarfare, do you have a link? I'm going to attempt a cleanup, but don't want to go too far if the entire thing will be deleted anyway. It sounds like the subject might be notable, but it's a bit unclear - thus, the cleanup. UltraExactZZ Claims~ Evidence 12:52, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * One possible source now linked in my comment, below yours. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:02, 19 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment I am comparing this with the source line by line. I have so far substantiated some duplication, but only two sentences. I'll see what else I can find. Meanwhile, the article that this copies is at DRV, here. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:01, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the link.  Syn  ergy 13:03, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Just as an update, I've done a comparison of the article with that source and found minor infringement in an evident good-faith effort to write in own words. I've got to run--dentist--but wanted to share the outcome of comparing those two, at least. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:46, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Much appreciated - concur that everything appears to be good faith, and there is some good stuff in there. Thanks, UltraExactZZ Claims~ Evidence 13:51, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * (ec) Ditto. Most helpful.  Syn  ergy 13:52, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * It looks like the long bit in the middle discussing case dispositions came from here, an ICE press release. UltraExactZZ Claims~ Evidence 14:23, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * That one would have been okay, as it was a government release and was sourced. But it's good without it, too. :) Well done! --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:24, 19 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Redirect to Agriprocessors. Any collaborative efforts can happen over there. We don't need a separate article on one specific event thats already covered in the main article.  Syn  ergy 13:25, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Agriprocessors. Per WP:BOLD, and on the premise that the existing article duplicated a copyrighted source (which seems to be at least partially the case, per above), I put together a stubbed version of this article, which could be expanded - but I see that there is already good coverage at Agriprocessors. That has the added bonus of not being a single-event article. So, if a separate article is in order, it should probably be at this title - but if not, that article would be the better choice. UltraExactZZ Claims~ Evidence 13:34, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Right. The revisions make it look a lot better (good work Ultra). But I'm still questioning whether this should exist on its own. I'll be happy to change to keep in the event its a notable fork.  Syn  ergy 13:43, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, now I'm torn... Agriprocessors is mostly criticism of the subject - well-sourced, and possibly well-deserved criticism - but, meh. Adding a lot of information about this raid might bump up against giving that criticism undue weight, even though I'm not finding a lot of positive material about that company. On that basis, a fork might be in order. UltraExactZZ Claims~ Evidence 13:53, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. The article has been beautifully cleaned. It is certainly a notable event within Agriprocessors, but it seems to have had a huge impact onPostville, Iowa as well and also looks like a valid "see also" for other articles. According to one of the linked sources, it is not only the largest raid in Iowa, but "the largest raid of its kind in the nation's history." It's notable well beyond the boundaries of the company involved; it's sourced; it's neutral. Keep, I think. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:24, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep The discussion at Deletion Review has been leaning toward keeping t he speedy-deleted article, but edited as necessary. I think that the significance goes beyond just the company to immigration policy generally, and selective enforcement of it in particular, and a spearate article will be appropriate. Otherwise the purely political aspects will overbalance the main article and make it even harder  to get NPOV there.. DGG (talk) 18:59, 19 August 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.