Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Skycap


 * 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. Obviously, no more comments are forthcoming after 2 relists. No prejudice to taking this to AfD again after an appropriate waiting period. Randykitty (talk) 14:46, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Skycap

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Tagged as unsourced five years ago. Still unsourced. Most of the article is WP:OR and advice (i.e. proper tipping amounts). I suppose I could just remove the unsourced material, but there wouldn't be anything left. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:47, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions.  Jinkinson   talk to me  22:57, 11 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment It is not strictly true that the article has been unsourced for five years.  Based on a quick skimming of the edit history, I found that the following have been added and removed, removed either without reasons or without verifiable reasons:
 * http://www.marketwatch.com/story/the-10-most-overpaid-jobs-in-the-us?pagenumber=1
 * http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-a-skycap.htm
 * The only relevant category is "Transport occupations". Unscintillating (talk) 22:38, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
 * The only relevant category is "Transport occupations". Unscintillating (talk) 22:38, 13 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Redirect to Porter (carrier) There is a contrast between the quote shown above, and the wisegeek.com sentence, "Skycap jobs generally are entry-level positions, with a low rate of pay and minimal possibility for advancement."  Tipping norms and whether or not skycaps are well-paid seems to have been a point of contention over the years, with the editors opposed to keeping references controlling.  The current article may be a copyvio of the wisegeek.com source, of course, it could be the other way, too.  There is already a place at Porter (carrier) to improve the topic, and the talk page suggested this as a merge target in 2007.  I'm not opposed to deleting the edit history, but sometimes you can get ideas from the old edits.  For example, I found another source, http://articles.latimes.com/1987-09-22/local/me-9570_1_finding-work, using a lead I found in the edit history.  Unscintillating (talk) 22:38, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep - Porter (carrier) is too broad a topic. This a analogous to Porter (railroad) — which is an "Other Stuff" argument, I know. This is, however, not a question of notability so much as a question of organization of WP. There is a good article to be written about Skycap, even though the current iteration might be terrible. Roots of the profession in the railroad porter tradition, the history of curbside checkin, evolution of the profession. It is a topic that passes GNG, see for example THIS from CNN.com or THIS Boston Globe piece about skycap-related wage litigation or THIS in the Dallas News about ongoing wage struggles in the profession. Carrite (talk) 13:43, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
 * WP:Deletion guidelines for administrators states, Wikipedia policy requires that articles and information comply with core content policies (verifiability, no original research or synthesis, neutral point of view, copyright, and biographies of living persons) as applicable. These policies are not negotiable, and cannot be superseded by any other guidelines or by editors' consensus.
 * Since I have no disagreement with any of your points, and I certainly agree that the topic is wp:notable, a difference is the organization before we get to the point when the encyclopedia is finished. One of the problems with a keep result is that volunteer time will be needed to assess the copyvio issue.  Unscintillating (talk) 00:12, 16 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 23:37, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

 
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 02:32, 28 October 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.