Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ottawa Panhandlers' Union

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.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: 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)