Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Workplace democracy


 * 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. Tone 12:09, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Workplace democracy

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

unsourced original research Darkstar1st (talk) 09:12, 16 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep, absolutely I will offer the same comment here that i offer for the AfD on Workers' self-management. These two concepts are related, but are not the same. The article needs work, but this is an extremely important concept that is relevant and notable. It does not get attention in the mainstream media in the United States, perhaps due to economic bias, but it is of vital interest to millions of working people around the world, and not just in an academic sense. The concept is in use to a significant extent in many countries, including Spain, Argentina, and Italy. I live in Denver, Colorado, and i know people who practice workers self-management via workplace democracy in their printing business. Yes, the article needs work, and yes, it needs sourcing. But deletion is out of the question. Richard Myers (talk) 16:04, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
 * We don't delete articles for not citing sources. We delete articles when no sources exist to be found.  That is deletion policy.  So what effort did you put into determining that no sources are to be found?  You're supposed to look for yourself when nominating articles for deletion, not leave that task up to other people.  (See User:Uncle G/Wikipedia triage for good practice of long-standing which forms part and parcel of both our verifiability and deletion policies.)  Did you go to Questia, for example, and see the umpteen books and articles on the subject, from Robert Mayer's Is There a Moral Right to Workplace Democracy?, in Social Theory and Practice through Hancock's, Logue's, and Schiller's Managing Modern Capitalism: Industrial Renewal and Workplace Democracy in the United States and Western Europe?  Did you go to Google Scholar to find Mayer duking out the debate over workplace democracy with Robert A. Dahl in articles like  and  in The Review of Politics? If you didn't do any of this, then you didn't approach Wikipedia correctly.  If one doesn't look for sources onesself, then any conclusion that something is "unsourced" is founded entirely on sand and is both worthless and of no actual use to either AFD or Wikipedia in general.  Always look for sources yourself.  It's how policy should be practiced.  Uncle G (talk) 16:11, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
 * @uncle G, apologies, we seemed to have covered the same ground. i should have mentioned more specifically the article was OR, after reading the sources found in google, and many others.  such a term does exist, just not supported by the text here.   Darkstar1st (talk) 16:21, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
 * So get out your editing tool and boldly rewrite the article! It doesn't require an administrator to exercise the deletion tool in order to get from the current state to the desired result.  Just be bold, and write a good, verifiable, neutral article, without mercy.  As the saying goes: AFD is not cleanup.  Anyone, even someone without an account, can perform the cleanup that you're looking for. Refactor, rewrite, and replace.  Turn an ugly ducking into sourced brilliant prose.  We all have the tools for that.  Uncle G (talk) 16:30, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep A complete waste of time nominating this article. There are many many ghits on this important concept. As for Workplace democracy AfD entry above, their will be substantial reliable sources on the topic from the management posse. Needs some work, certainly, but no delete. scope_creep (talk) 20:52, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
 * believe me i tried, and since there is so much support here, i doubt there will be any trouble sourcing the article. what i found was not supported by the source, rather an interpretation, wrapped in OR, disguised as wp.  the writing style is grade a, the topic is of great interrest, but few could deny the current work is below wp standards.  a void is superior to a charade.   Darkstar1st (talk) 20:43, 16 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Strong keep The subject is notable and there is an abundance of reliable sources that could be used to get this article referenced (see google scholar). Gobonobo  T C 21:23, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
 * the problem is not the sources, rather the difference of the text, to the sources you and others googled.  Darkstar1st (talk) 21:26, 16 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Strong keep Per WP:SNOW Zazaban (talk) 22:50, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:45, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:45, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - Another encyclopedia-worthy article title, this one a little short in the content department. Fix it, don't nix it. Carrite (talk) 03:25, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Notable concept/topic. --NortyNort (Holla) 08:28, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Also Definite Keep as this is an important concept (like worker's self-management) which follows the post-communist party and anti-corrupt union movements in Italy, Germany, France and Spain in the 1960's through the 1990's. See George Katsiasficas' book Bold textThe Subversion of Politics"Italic textSee also, CLR James' concept of worker self-management as "everyday" socialism. It also has ties to the Argentinian workers' self-organizing movement recorded in a book called "Horizontality", by Marina Sitrin... the Italian Opereia movement is well outlined in Toni Negri's book, "The Hammer of Dionysus" et.al. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.243.208.242 (talk) 02:15, 18 August 2010 (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.