Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Trade unions in Pakistan


 * 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 delete.  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 15:59, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Trade unions in Pakistan

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

No useful content Rathfelder (talk) 09:15, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete Absolutely no sources whatsoever. Jdcomix (talk) 15:49, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
 * There obviously is an article to be written. But this isn't it.Rathfelder (talk) 16:39, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. /wiae  /tlk  19:51, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Ironically, there clearly are sources, and editors only needed to look at the article at hand in order to see some of them, as they are hyperlinked from it. One doesn't even need to search for them, or check the article history; although both are standard good practice before nominating things for deletion and when adding an opinion to an AFD discussion.  One just needs to read what's in the text as nominated.  Actually performing standard good practice turns up some interesting entire books on the subject in Worldcat, and that's just for starters. On the subject of the edit history, however: It shows that multiple sources were simply filched wholesale and splatted into the article by people, instead of writing.  One of them was  for example.  Another was  which itself cites further sources to be looked at. Given that the article was a copyright violation in its initial revision, and its creator  clearly substituted half-inching other people's work wholesale as a substitute for writing in many places in Wikipedia, I would like to err on the side of caution and simply delete the entire edit history in order to start again.  We lose exactly one sentence of prose by actual content writers that is a generic description of trades unions which isn't even specific to Pakistan.  A ten-year history of lazy non-writing and multiple copyright violation is exactly where a administrator removing an entire edit history is warranted.  Delete and let the redlinks stand. Uncle G (talk) 11:18, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  MBisanz  talk 01:20, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep This is deserving of an article. The article needs serious work, but the topic is notable. ThePlatypusofDoom  (Talk) 19:17, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete - We already have All Pakistan Trade Union Federation, which seems to be the AFL-CIO of the Pakistani union movement. Constituent union histories should be sprung off of that. Yeah, the subject of this unsourced one line stub is technically notable, but let's just call it a fork, toss in a stick of TNT, and call it good. Carrite (talk) 05:18, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
 * According to the article the All Pakistan Trade Union Federation is the second largest trade union federation in Pakistan, so neither it, nor an article about any other federation, can be the top-level article about trade unionism in Pakistan. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 19:35, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  MBisanz  talk 01:45, 6 June 2016 (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.