Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sara Nelson (union leader)


 * 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. This discussion has been hopelessly polluted by blocked users, sockpuppets, incivility, and other things that make it difficult to assess consensus. However, of those genuine users who expressed a view on the topic, there does not seem to be agreement on whether the sources provided do or do not demonstrate notability. Given the unsatisfactory nature of the majority of this discussion, no prejudice against speedy relisting if someone wants to take the plunge again. Lankiveil (speak to me) 01:56, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Sara Nelson (union leader)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Appears to be non-notable individual lacking non-trivial support. References are press release or trivial coverage in nature. Lacks in-depth coverage. Fails to establish notability. red dog six (talk) 23:36, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Removed Comments by Blocked Editor Nelson is a well known Labor Leader in the United States. Additionally, she replaces Veda Shook. We are in the process of adding more citations and information. However, we wanted to get the structure done first.

By reigniting the discussion, you only further demonstrate Reddogsix what I initially posted on your page, that this appears to be driven by a political agenda on your end through disagreement with issues raised.

There are literally thousands of Labor leaders with less rank listed on Wikipedia. The individual is notable to anyone who googles Sara Nelson AFA, or watches the News. She appears frequently on talk shows, to discuss issues that affect Flight Attendants.

Additionally, the page has established her notability in its recent update. Reddogsix apparently didn't take the time to read it.

References are ARTICLES from cites like Reuters, the New York Times, and even the AFL-CIO itself.

Again, this overreach by red dog six  appears to be motivated by petty political agendas, and not the quality of Wikipedia. Unionyes420 (talk) 23:43, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Additionally, Nelson has appeared in Media on four different continents. These will all be added tonight once we compile the cites in the right order. Notability? Unionyes420 (talk) 23:46, 10 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment-:I suggest you read WP:UNCIVIL before you accuse anyone else of an agenda. You know nothing of me other than what you could ascertain from my edit history, I suggest you review that before you start making any further claims that cannot be supported.  The article needs to be supported by non-trivial support. The WP:BURDEN of providing that support falls to the author of the article, not to the reader.  Since you have not provided support, I have AfD the article in the hopes someone will do so.


 * "Real world" notability differs from Wikipedia based WP:Notability, I suggest you read the guideline in this sentence. Btw, an association with anyone else does not provide notability - notability is not Inherited.  red dog six  (talk) 00:01, 11 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete Fails WP:GNG. The sources listed in the article are press releases or small statements made by Nelson. I poked around a bit but all I found were additional press releases that do nothing to help notability.  Ish dar  ian  00:12, 11 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete lack of non-trivial coverage, she may be notable in the future - however, at the moment I think we're lacking basic notability  D u s t i *Let's talk!* 00:12, 11 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment The page will need to be moved to Sara Nelson instead of Sara Nelson AFA should this for some reason be kept  D u s t i *Let's talk!* 00:13, 11 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Oh, I didn't realize we already had that article - how are situations like this resolved? (honest question).  D u s t i *Let's talk!* 00:14, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Removed Comments by Blocked Editor *comment Satisfies WP:GNG

Removed Comments by Blocked Editor Note that the article cites the New York Times, Reuters, Associations Now, AFA, and the AFL-CIO. One could not find better sources for Labor Leaders. We're inputting more cites tonight, and adding more information to the article. Again, reddogsix, suggesting uncivility over and over again to deflect what you have done suggests you should reread WP:UNCIVIL yourself. Definitely not an act of good faith.

Re making it just Sara Nelson, that one already exists - they are two different people. Unionyes420 (talk) 00:18, 11 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Removed Comments by Blocked Editor *Response This person's name is Sara Nelson and her entry should not be required to carry the parenthetical (Union Leader). There are thousands of examples of entries involving multiple people who have the same name, which in turn leads to the creation of a disambiguation page. Why is that not an appropriate solution here? david (talk) 18:35, 11 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment - without the parenthetical notation there would be no way to create an entry to refer to from the disambiguation page. Since there already is a Sara Nelson there needs to be a way to distinguish it from the existing named entry.  The parenthetical notation is usually based on the primary function of the article subject.  If Nelson was a football player the entry would be Sara Nelson (football).   red dog six  (talk) 20:21, 11 August 2014 (UTC)


 * ResponseIf the page is headed Sara Nelson (Union Leader) will it show up in a search for "Sara Nelson"? 2601:A:4E80:4B0:5150:475F:7A2A:B9C6 (talk) 00:20, 12 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment - it should, you can test it. Give it a shot.  red dog six  (talk) 01:16, 12 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Removed Comments by Blocked Editor Do Not Delete, Move To Sara Nelson (Borer) Not sure why anyone is in such an almighty hurry to delete this. Nelson led one of the largest private section union election victories since Walter Reuther organized the autoworkers at General Motors. Granted most people don't know their labor history; that's why people like us are posting significant events and leaders so Wiki will be more complete and will have less of an anti-union bias than other sources. About 60% of the American labor unions listed on Wiki have, by rough count, links to the leader of that union. None of which, as far as I could find, ever published an Op Ed piece on the New York Times editorial page. So, while reddog might not know her, that's more on him and not on her. david (talk) 00:23, 11 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment - how does any of this establish Wikipedia based WP:Notability? red dog six  (talk) 00:29, 11 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Removed Comments by Blocked Editor *Updated Page Added coverage from the Today Show. Bringing the cites to:

[1]"Corvallis native elected president of flight attendants union". nwLaborPress.org (Portland, Oregon). June 4, 2014. Retrieved August 10, 2014. [2], by Reuters, Published June 5, 2013. [3], by Associations Now, Accessed August 10, 2014. [4], by New York Times, Published March 27, 2013. [5], by the Today Show, Accessed August 10, 2014. [6], published by the AFL-CIO, Accessed August 10, 2014. Unionyes420 (talk) 00:30, 11 August 2014 (UTC)


 * x2: These sources don't even come close to establishing GNG.
 * nwLaborPress.org - Press release. Doesn't meet WP:RS
 * Reuters, Published June 5, 2013. - Small quote from Nelson. Does not establish notability.
 * Associations Now, Accessed August 10, 2014. - Small quote from Nelson. Does not establish notability.
 * New York Times, Published March 27, 2013. - Article by Nelson, not about Nelson. Does not establish notability.
 * AFL-CIO, Accessed August 10, 2014. - No mention. Source does nothing.
 * , you need to assume good faith here. You automatically jumped down reddogsix's throat and claimed that he has some kind of political/personal motivation to delete the article, yet you have shown not a single shred of proof to back up your claims. You need to calm down and take a step back here. If you have additional sources, please add them to the article. Other than that, just let the discussion run it's course. You're not doing yourself any favors here.  Ish dar  ian  00:30, 11 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Removed Comments by Blocked Editor *Response Actually, I was rather straight up with him at first. Then, he decided that other users approving the page wasn't good enough for him, and that he didn't like that someone else removed his request for deletion, so he put it here for a group discussion. If we're going to debate the actions, let's keep it in perspective. Additionally, we have a TON of sources. Literally, thousands. I'm plugging them in and adding to the article as we go. I'm not looking for favors. I'm looking to contribute to an accurate and quality Wiki. These personal attacks are getting old, fast. Unionyes420 (talk) 00:34, 11 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Removed Comments by Blocked Editor *Further Response This page clearly meets GNG. It displays significant coverage, and this is with just the bare cites I'm able to plug in while responding to y'all. They are all reliable, media sources. The sources are secondary, outside of her interviews and op/ed. And, the independence is further demonstrated by the multiple media coverages. And lastly, ""Presumed" means that significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject should be included. A more in-depth discussion might conclude that the topic actually should not have a stand-alone article—perhaps because it violates what Wikipedia is not, particularly the rule that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information.[5]" Unionyes420 (talk) 00:38, 11 August 2014 (UTC)


 * RD6 has been following procedure. That "review" means nothing, especially since the account was created for that sole purpose. The WP:PROD was contested, so he took it to AfD. He did nothing wrong here and you can't fault him for that.  Ish dar  ian  00:39, 11 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:42, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:42, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:42, 11 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Removed Comments by Blocked Editor *Response I've re-read all the applicable guidelines and can't find a single requirement that the article fails to satisfy. I've added additional cites, and I have a whole list of additional cites to add tonight. I'm also seeking a different photo and will add it to the info box asap. I must say, looking at other similar entries, this one is already more developed than many. In fact, there are lots of corporate executives who are far less "notable" and have less of a public profile and yet have an entry that goes unchallenged here. What, specifically, will it take to get the Articles for Deletion header removed, because I'm happy to fill in any remaining blanks. Absent something specific, leaving the header on this page seems to violate the guideline that creates a presumption in favor of inclusion now that we've added multiple independent sources from major news outlets as references. david (talk) 18:35, 11 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment - I have reviewed the additional references and they do not eliminate the original concerns. There is a lack of non-trivial secondary references.  I would focus on adding those type of references.  As for the image, please be sure it does not violate any copyright guidelines - that is what got the original image removed from Wikipedia.  As far as other articles, please see WP:WAX.  Remember Wikipedia based notability differs from "real world" notability.  The two are not the same.  If you feel there are articles that need to be nominated for deletion, you are welcome to do so by following the Wikipedia guidelines.  The AfD will run for at least 7 days and possible longer.  Given the number of comment on it, it is unlikely it will be closed sooner than that.   red dog six  (talk) 20:37, 11 August 2014 (UTC)


 * ResponseI'm not interested in deleting other articles that are obviously inadequate; that's someone else's pastime. My point, obviously, was simply that you are attempting to hold this article to a standard that not applied to other pages. I don't know why, so I'll just keep adding cites until it's obvious to everybody that the article should stay. And, I have to note that you've ignored once again the presumption that the article should stay. If you're going to demand that there's a feature-length documentary about a person before they should have an article then you should get busy deleting thousands of other entries. Seriously, if the New York, the BBC, Canadian TV and all the others aren't sufficient evidence of notability I don't know what you're looking for. Is there some higher level of authority I can discuss this with? 2601:A:4E80:4B0:5150:475F:7A2A:B9C6 (talk) 00:20, 12 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment - The same standards are applied to all articles, there is no "special" application of Wikipedia guidelines. You seem to ignore that at least two other editors have agreed with the assessment that this articles fails to establish notability.  The simple fact is other editors, in addition to myself, do not agree the article meets notability guidelines.  I am not sure why you would think I would require a documentary about any individual - I never said or implied anything like that.  Why would there be a presumption that the article should stay?  If it meets Wikipedia guidelines sure, but if not, why?  You ask the question about the quality of the reference sources, the issue relates to non-trivial vs. trivial and secondary vs. primary support.  SeeWP:GNG.  The purpose of the AfD is to provide comments about an article nominated for deletion, the deletion or inclusion is a result of the quality of arguments supported by Wikipedia guidelines that are reviewed by an Admin.  The Admin will make the decision.  If you feel any of my actions are contrary to Wikipedia guidelines, you can use WP:RFC/U to report the actions, but I would suggest you understand the guidelines, the process, and what you are suggesting as the improper action on my part.   red dog six  (talk) 01:12, 12 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Removed Comments by Blocked Editor *Comment Is it customary to block and remove the content by a long-time admin in order to get the upper hand in a debate about whether to delete an article? I thought this was an open system? Show me the rule that allows another admin to do this. This whole crusade against this page is just ridiculous david (talk) 14:59, 12 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment - First of all it is my understanding User:Unionyes420 has never been an Admin. Concerning the strikeout of the comments, see WP:BANREVERT. I don't know what you mean about this being an "open system".  While anyone can contribute to Wikipedia there are standards that we all have to follow in order to be allow to contribute to Wikipedia.   red dog six  (talk) 16:24, 12 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Question Aren't the citations included at this point too overwhelming to ignore Notability? Surely, ever major media outlet being included gives credence to the non-trivial/notability requirement. It seems that we are debating semantics, instead of focusing on the quality of WP. Invisiblediplomat (talk) 15:35, 12 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment I do not believe the citations are substantial enough to establish notability. A quotation in an article is not non-trivial.  red dog six  (talk) 16:24, 12 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Removed Comments by Blocked Editor *Comment I thought it was odd how quickly and how hard RD6 jumped on this article. Then I found this in the guidelines: "Unsourced biographies of living people (BLP) created after March 18, 2010, can be proposed for deletion using a special proposed deletion process. To place a BLPPROD tag, the process requires that the article contain no sources in any form (as references, external links, etc.), which support any statements made about the person in the biography." I'd politely suggest it's time to back off of the proposed deletion and allow people to finish building this page. Is there a process I can use to recuse someone from stomping on this article while we're given a fair opportunity to build it to completion. Or, is there some way to get a fair assessment of the whole "notability" issue since it seems RD6 has determined that no amount of citations are sufficient in spite of what the guideline I just cited might say? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dab2 (talk • contribs) 18:14, 12 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete because the references are not about her, non-notable union leader. --Bejnar (talk) 05:29, 13 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Removed Comments by Blocked Editor Keep It the references are secondary, of high quality, and she is one of the most featured union leaders in the US on the news. i just searched for her on an engine, and it came up with hundreds of additional citations. I noticed that specifically WP states that new pages shouldn't be jumped on, and should be given an opportunity to be authored. Just looking over things on this, it appears that is exactly what happened.GiganticMasticator (talk) 15:26, 14 August 2014 (UTC) — GiganticMasticator (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Keep. Notable union leader of a 50,000 member union. Sources like this one and this one and this one and this one and this one and this one are nontrivial reliable independent sources confirming that Nelson easily meets the WP:GNG. That the New York Times thinks she is notable enough to allow her to write an op-ed piece is further confirmation.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 22:57, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Articles {Ping|Tomwsulcer}} cites are not about her, such as "Osama Bin Laden Dead: Flight Attendants React" and "Flight attendants protest TSA changes: 'This cannot stand'", or they are press releases from the union like [this one at bizjournals.com]. --Bejnar (talk) 15:34, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Nonsense. Do you expect sources to be about her in the sense of her personal preferences, her backstory, her childhood, her views on subject X or Y? Nobody cares about that. Rather, she is a union leader and spokesperson, influential, with much media attention, and the cites are rightly about her union-oriented issues, such as TSA decisions, bargaining positions, and such. Clearly notable.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 17:23, 17 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment - I suppose it is nonsense if you consider the Wikipedia guidelines for notability nonsense. Just being a "union leader of a 50,000 member union" does not make anyone notable per Wikipedia guidelines and it is not a Wikipedia criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia.  Remember, "real-world" notability is different than Wikipedia notability.  As pointed out many times in the AfD, the references in the article are trivial or are not secondary.


 * What I find interesting is that I fully expect the individual to be notable sometime in the future. Probably, sooner than later.  But until her coverage improves, not just yet. red dog six  (talk) 18:00, 17 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Subject meets Wikipedia's notability guideline which says received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. She is mentioned prominently in major articles which are valid WP:SECONDARY sources.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 18:22, 17 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment - I fail to see significant coverage, being quoted in an article or briefly mentioned does not equal significant coverage.  red dog six  (talk) 18:32, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Leading a substantial union effort to prominently criticize a TSA decision is significant coverage in spades.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 18:36, 17 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep The sources cited by Tomwsulcer are more than trivial coverage and satisfy WP:BASIC: "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability." 24.151.10.165 (talk) 21:40, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep As described by the editors above, I think this satisfies WP:BASIC. The article should be sharpened up on referencing and content, but the subject is a longtime union leader with multiple reference sources, including coverage on NBC and BBC, plus the op-ed in The New York Times. It seems unlikely the subject is going to go away anytime soon and more sources and judicious editing are likely to improve this article over time, so a delete now would be counterproductive in my view. I've added it to a couple of wiki projects (aviation and organised labour) as it would certainly help to have collaboration and focused discussion around the article from subject specialists. Libby norman (talk) 11:17, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 10:06, 20 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep as per Tomwsulcer and Passes WP:BASIC.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 19:20, 20 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Removed Comments by Blocked Editor Keep. Multiple (among 16 provided) sources are independent and non-trivial reliable, Tomwsulcer already listed some of the specific articles above. Nelson easily meets the WP:GNG, particularly given the influence and importance of the union the subject leads. Though technically a primary source, the New York Times selection of the subject for an opinion article on her expertise confirms notability in the newspaper's eyes. It is worth noting that  red dog six, who appears to be driving the deletion, appears to have personal views of notability and triviality that are much more subjective than Wikipedia's guidelines. Specifically, a review of  red dog six 's history shows a concerning amount of conflicts and arguments regarding female article subjects, and possibly female Wikipedia editors. Tenderlegal (talk) 21:58, 20 August 2014 (UTC) — Tenderlegal (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Comment - Making personal attacks does not validate your views.  Nor does making unsupported comments.  I suggest you acquaint yourself with WP:AGF and WP:UNCIVIL.  Interesting that other editors have supported my views on the  notability, yet you have failed to call them to task for their opinions.  If you are sure my actions are contrary to Wikipedia standards and guideline, you are welcome to use WP:RFC/U as an avenue to quell my actions.   red dog six  (talk) 22:25, 20 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Removed Comments by Blocked Editor Comment - Is that a boilerplate or intended for another editor(?), I made no personal attack, and AGF by saying "possibly" in the face of multiple immediately observable data points. Your personal and lengthy arguments with several other editors (see above) and similar arguments throughout your user history are not my views, they are solely your doing and are available for anyone to review like I did. This pattern of arguments is relevant to this article and subject, and seemed worth mentioning more than echoing more of the same reasons this article should be kept. I do not appreciate your sarcastic remark, ("Interesting that..."), but to respond, unfortunately I do not have enough free time to address every single response here, nor do I have free time for the AfD comment wars like the ones you've engaged in above. I come to Wikipedia in hopes of helping all editors and subjects have fair representation and unbiased opportunity. I am giving you the benefit of the doubt here, but the patterns in warring is making it difficult. Tenderlegal (talk) 10:45, 21 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment - Just so there is no doubt, the comment I made above was directed to Tenderlegal. Your drive by false statements of bias and statements of "giving the benefit of the doubt" in spite of prior comments are contrary to the Wikipedia community.  red dog six  (talk) 14:30, 21 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Removed Comments by Blocked Editor Comment - Rather than accuse me of lying about what is demonstrably true (for reasons already mentioned above), please explain why you have a disproportionate amount of arguments and comment warring, particularly on female subjects and with what appear to be female editors. Your claims of non-triviality and non-notability aren't supported by Wikipedia's guidelines, and instead of supporting your positions with more information, you immediately claim another editor is being uncivil and start every comment with an unrelated (and incorrectly used) HTML tag "sigh." If your claims are valid, you should have no problem providing an explanation of them, so please do so. Otherwise, becoming so defensive and evasive severely weakens the credibility of your already subjective claims. Tenderlegal (talk) 19:31, 21 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment - No thanks, if you wish to understand my stand on the article, reread the comments above.  red dog six  (talk) 00:33, 22 August 2014 (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.