Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ottawa Panhandlers' Union

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 18:15, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Ottawa Panhandlers' Union

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Ottawa Panhandlers' Union

Ottawa Panhandlers' Union (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

This article (without an apostrophe) was successfully AFD'd before here. I don't believe the article has changed significantly since that time, and I don't see why it shouldn't be merged into the Industrial Workers of the World article. TastyCakes (talk) 17:32, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

This article was already nominated for deletion by the same user who clearly has some kind of political bias. How many times is he going to nominate this for deletion? Isn't there a limit on the number of times he can vote this for deletion? I say this should be overturned. [edit]. Of course my vote is KEEP. No, I'm not a sock.

Strummingbabe (talk) 18:09, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I did not nominate it for deletion, User:Samir did. Also, Strummingbabe appears to be a sock puppet of User:Aurush kazemini and/or User:MiltonP Ottawa, a banned user. TastyCakes (talk) 18:12, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

• KEEP This article was deleted last time as a result of a false flag campaign by someone claiming to be a member of the Panhandlers' Union -- a person who was homeless at the time with no access to a computer and is in any case functionally illiterate. The personal information used to identify this member (such as the name of an arresting officer and the crimes with which he was charged) would be unavailable to anyone except a member of the police department. The original Panhandlers' Union article was vandalized twice by someone using a computer located in either Ottawa City Hall or the Ottawa Police Station; this is verifiable with Wikiscanner. The nominator of this article has systematically targetted every single article he could find related to activism in the city of Ottawa, including Jane Scharf and Denis Rancourt. This is clearly a bad-faith nomination, and seeing as the original deletion should not have occured to begin with (and would not have, save for systemic bias in Wikipedia), there is absolutely no reason to delete this article. SmashTheState (talk) 18:12, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment: Coming from a user that knows a thing or two about bad faith nomination. By my count I nominated two semi-related articles for deletion - Jane Scharf and Denis Rancourt, only the first of which was successful. Also, a look at the previous AFD page shows the rounding up of meat puppets was an issue to the extent that making a decision was difficult. Hopefully we can now have a proper discussion and decide once and for all if the article is worth keeping. TastyCakes (talk) 18:24, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

COMMENT Ah. So you're admitting that this is a bad-faith attempt at "revenge" for what you see as some kind of campaign against articles you like? SmashTheState (talk) 19:30, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

COMMENT: No, I am saying you're quite a complainer for someone that does so much worthy of complaint. If I were on a "campaign" I would have AFD'd more than 3 articles (one since you first complained about it). TastyCakes (talk) 20:04, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

• Keep. No deletion rationale has even been given. There's notability, media coverage, etc. The article seems somewhat poorly written, but it deserves a chance to be improved. Bolwerk (talk) 18:14, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
  • comment: Ah sorry, my rationale would be approximately the same as the previous AFD nomination: it does not presently portray a particularly notable group (they exist to... fight tickets and disrupt commerce?), is poorly written and has POV issues. I feel the content could be more than adequately wrapped up in the IWW article, the IWW being the parent organisation if I'm not mistaken. TastyCakes (talk) 18:29, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

COMMENT I was not aware that the political activities and affiliation of an organization had a bearing on its notability. I was under the impression that it was based on such things as media coverage. Perhaps you'd be so good as to direct me to that policy? And the IWW is not the "parent" organization. The Panhandlers' Union of Ottawa is affiliated with the IWW. Is its own organization and could, in theory, cease to be a member of the IWW at the choice of its members, just as any other union could change its affiliation. And seeing as the IWW is 104 years old and has had as many as 200,000 members at one time, "rolling" every affiliated union into the IWW article would amount to something the size of a dead-tree encyclopedia. SmashTheState (talk) 19:29, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

COMMENT: You were not aware that an organisation had to do something notable to have a wikipedia article? Are you saying the OPU is not notable enough to be mentioned in the IWW article but is notable enough to have its own page? TastyCakes (talk) 20:02, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

• Keep - instantly found an interview on the IWW web site, just for starters. Appears to be plenty of media coverage. "they exist to... fight tickets and disrupt commerce?"-- that sounds like an example of I don't like it. Neither being poorly written nor having POV issues is a reason to delete.  J L G 4 1 0 4  20:29, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

COMMENT: Also, I don't mean to nitpick every reference, but the one you give does not seem to be independent on the subject, as spelled out here, since the OPU is at least affiliated with the IWW (they say it is a "shop" of the IWW, I'm not sure exactly what that entails). TastyCakes (talk) 01:01, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

That's a reasonable thing to point out. My intention was mainly to show that this organization is known and discussed, and it's easy to find references. I also gave some notability points for being featured on the IWW's web site; this might be akin to being featured on the site of the NCTE or whatever other large, national or international organization you like. If that still fails the IOS test, I'd still say it passes "significant coverage" and "reliable." FWIW a "shop" is an old trade term for what was once literally a shop (printing, steamfitting, machining, e.g.) that was organized and thus a member of the union, agreeing to abide its policies, in exchange for voting priveleges and other benefits (e.g., strike emergency supplies, legal representation). Not sure if the OPU fits that model, but looks like they sort of might.  J L G 4 1 0 4  02:05, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

COMMENT: When I said what it appears the OPU does, I wasn't inferring that I didn't like it, I was inferring that I didn't think these things were particularly noteworthy. What I do disagree with is that after this article was deleted the first time, it was remade as though the AFD hadn't come down against it, apparently using a trivial name change (addition of apostrophe) to avoid speedy deletion. TastyCakes (talk) 20:34, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't see the previous article's existence as reason to delete the present one. What if it wasn't notable in the past, but is notable now? Anyway, it looks like User:SmashTheState is right about the deletion being unnecessary. I can't speak to his claims of an inside job, but it looks like the deleting admin ignored what was closer to a consensus to keep, claiming there were sockpuppets (maybe there were, but I didn't see any evidence of that either). Bolwerk (talk) 21:02, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree, if the article is significantly improved from its previous incarnation, and this AFD results in that view, the article should be kept, and I'd be very happy to live with that result. I also agree that the last AFD wasn't particularly clear (partly as a result of said meat puppets). But surely, that alone is reason enough to revisit this AFD? TastyCakes (talk) 21:53, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Can we just assume this is a fresh start for the case at hand? I'm not familiar with the prior AfD, and a lot of the hassle seems to be over things past. J L G 4 1 0 4  22:02, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

That seems like a good idea, considering how convoluted and bitter the last one got. But if you do want to look through it, it's at: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ottawa Panhandlers Union. TastyCakes (talk) 22:10, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I have no idea what the previous article looked like. Was it a fluff piece? I think this current article has serious stylistic problems and NPOV issues, but so do many articles. Fixing that could be as simple as moving parts of the article around into a more coherent narrative, less biased towards conflict and more towards function. (Much of the article's POV seems obsessed with proving its notability. This could be because the authors are frivolously trying to prove notability, or critics are frivolously trying to dismiss notability. I don't see Mothers Against Drunk Driving having such an obsession with media citations.) Bolwerk (talk) 22:40, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

• Keep Apparently sufficient references to justify notability. Quite possibly the Jane Scharf article should be revisited. Looking at it, it seems to me that a more modest article might well be acceptable. Anyone want it in their user space to work on? DGG (talk) 21:34, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Comment: Here is the link to Scharf's AFD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jane Scharf. I don't believe it was particularly controversial, but hey I'm the one that nominated it ;) TastyCakes (talk) 22:06, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

• Keep Interesting article about something with at least national media coverage here in Canada. I do see some POV issues... I just don't feel especially bold today. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Baiter (talk • contribs) 23:15, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
• Keep. And, frankly, I am quite tired of having to oppose the deletion of notable articles like this one, when there are ten thousand articles about obscure TV characters that never get challenged. Do we really need an article for each of the characters off the TV show Gilligan's Island, to pick one ridiculous example? Or all the characters from The Venture Brothers, to pick another? Such inanity is just one of the reasons I have such a hard time taking Wikipedia seriously. --Nik (talk) 02:23, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

If the AFD had been done properly the first time (and/or respected) this wouldn't have been necessary. Indeed, Samir speedy deleted the article this morning, and would presumably have left it deleted it it weren't for this ongoing discussion. TastyCakes (talk) 05:16, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

The last deletion discussion was a farce. The entire process was derailed by crazy pranksters. Despite that, it was decided (bizarrely) that there was consensus and the article was deleted. When I voted to keep the article, I was dismissed as biased and unworthy of offering an opinion -- because I hadn't made a lot of edits on Wikipedia. (Forgive me for having a life.) There are three things in this world that you never want to see being made -- laws, sausages, and Wikipedia articles. --Nik (talk) 13:51, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Well isn't the last AFD's problems all the more reason to do this again? You're apparently being listened to now. TastyCakes (talk) 15:39, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

• Keep, cyclopedic. Ottre 02:26, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
• Query If somebody could find evidence of the following, quoted from this article (per the OPU page itself), that might help address the problem of POV, since if this organization is making its case to city hall, and city hall is "negotiating" with it, well, that's significant to me: "Members of the Panhandlers Union are negotiating with Ottawa City Hall and the various business improvement areas regarding the current ban on street vending so that the homeless can sell their arts, crafts, jewelry, and street newspapers, as well as perform music and street theatre. With the union behind them they can look to the future with an entrepreneurial spirit."  J L G 4 1 0 4  02:28, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

"Negotiating" might be an optomistic way of putting it. The current mayor of Ottawa once refered to panhandlers as pigeons that will go away if you don't feed them. He's not exactly sympathetic to the OPU. That being said, there was a large protest group of homeless people and protestors who camped out on the lawn of city hall a few years back. While that was going on, there were various negotiations with the previous mayor. The OPU, it is my understanding, was a part of the protest and the negotiations. The protest itself was in a lot of the Ottawa media. Hard to miss a tent city on the lawn of city hall. Of course this is all hearsay, and entirely inadmissable in the Wikicourt of law. --Nik (talk) 13:59, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

• COMMENT: I just wanted to clear up something... I've tried to edit the article. I've also tried to figure out what the hell the OPU does. The people involved in the group are "marginal", in the sense that they are the poor and panhandlers. You might be tempted to dismiss the group based on that alone -- marginalized people, you might feel, don't deserve an article. Still, the OPU has received quite a bit of media attention in Ottawa -- both in print and on TV -- as well as some national and international attention. Based on that alone, there is no doubt the OPU deserves an article. And yes, I agree -- the article is badly written, with a lot of bias. (I still have no idea what the OPU specifically does.) But that's not a reason to delete. SmashTheState, who is actively involved with the OPU, has avoided editing the article. He doesn't want to appear biased in the matter. I would like to suggest that he edit the article all the same. He's a good writer and in a position to spell things out clearly. I'm sure he could come up with a good NPOV summary of the OPU and save us all from a world of grief and hellishness. Now let us never speak of this again. --Nik (talk) 14:32, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

• Comment from creator As the history shows, I transwiki'd this article from Anarchopedia under the terms of the GFDL. I was unaware of the deletion of a different version of the article at the time, and added the article because I believed that the sources contained therein were reliable and constituted significant coverage of the topic, thus satisfying the general notability criterion for inclusion. The sources have not gotten any less comprehensive or reliable since, and the responses to this nomination indicate that this discussion ought to be closed with consensus to retain the article. Regards, Skomorokh 19:05, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
• Decision?: Seems like we're getting pretty close to a consensus for keep here. Baiter (talk) 23:59, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
  • looks like a keep to me. TastyCakes (talk) 04:28, 22 January 2009 (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.