Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Recognition strike

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 merge to Strike action. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:18, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Recognition strike

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article has been unsourced since 2007. Notabilty needs to be reviewed. Coin945 (talk) 05:52, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep, the nominator does not propose a valid WP:DEL-REASON. The nominator does not say which notability guideline this article fails to meet. SailingInABathTub (talk) 10:24, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The first sentence checks out against ISBN 9780801833113 page 59. Uncle G (talk) 11:52, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Strike action Reywas92^Talk 18:12, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a very clear dictionary definition. This is an encyclopedia not a dictionary.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:07, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Strike action per Reywas92. Articles cover concepts. We do not need seperate articles on every word used to describe a concept.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:16, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to strike action.--Rusf10 (talk) 21:01, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Seems like a quite notable concept to me; I've expanded the article and located six decent references. I would advise previous voters (@Reywas92: @Johnpacklambert: @Rusf10:) to reconsider in light of this. jp×g 00:19, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I still believe Merge is the most appropriate outcome. Not a large enough topic for its own article.--Rusf10 (talk) 00:21, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I also see no reason this can't still be merged. "Notable concept" is not the same as "must be separate article." Reywas92^Talk 01:06, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well, it's a stub. There is plenty of information in the sources that could be used to expand it further; I've been referencing/expanding a large number of articles from this enormous batch and I can't really spend the time to bring each one to DYK/GA quality. It's not as though it would be impossible (or even particularly difficult), if anyone wanted to WP:SOFIXIT. jp×g 02:55, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- There's a little bit more to be had than what you have on organization strikes, which are the same thing (per source above), in ISBN 9780403011483. Uncle G (talk) 02:27, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks; I've incorporated a reference to page 60 of that book in the article (although there is certainly more to be gotten from it). jp×g 03:03, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment is this a term that only exists in the US? Are these never done in any other countries? That is what the article as written seems to imply without actual saying one way or the other.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:44, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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.