Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Electrical, Electronic, Telecommunications and Plumbing Union

:{{la|Electrical, Electronic, Telecommunications and Plumbing Union}} – (View AfDView log{{int:dot-separator}} [http://toolserver.org/~snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Electrical,_Electronic,_Telecommunications_and_Plumbing_Union Stats])

:({{Find sources|Electrical, Electronic, Telecommunications and Plumbing Union}})

Completed on behalf of User:Christian1985. הסרפד (call me “Hasirpad”) (formerly R——bo) 03:16, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

• Keep. Clearly notable. See the book and newspaper articles cited as references. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 08:42, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep Not clear here what the reasons for deletion are intended to be. Article needs work but clearly notable. Mcewan (talk) 09:20, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 08:42, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 08:48, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

• Speedy keep The EETPU was, in its time, one of the principal British unions. The refs could be improved, but even a cursory Google search brings up many results indicating obvious notability.--A bit iffy (talk) 10:03, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
• Keep. Major trade union. No reason given for deletion. Original nom's opinion that "This is just opinionated nonsense" is clearly utter rubbish, since the article is predominantly just a summary history of the union. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:20, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
• Keep There has clearly been a problem in maintaining standards in this article, but those of us old enough to have been around at the time of the events described will not be surprised at that given the passions aroused. There has been some cleaning up and notability cannot be seriously questioned. Once notable, always notable, and the union was headline material for years. --AJHingston (talk) 11:52, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
• Delete This article is appallingly written, full of POV and OR and has no citations or references whatsoever. I feel this article should be deleted, it is not fit for purpose in its current state. Thank you Christian1985 (talk) 11:54, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
• Not that badly written, little POV, no OR. It now also has a number of references. I really can't see your objection. This is clearly a subject worthy of an article and AfD is not the place to get articles rewritten. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:12, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

:::It is very poorly written and full of POV/OR, large swathes of the article were unsourced with ridiculous contentious statements like "they write their own rules and stick up two fingers to the TUC", that is just opinionated nonsense and completely inappropriate. Christian1985 (talk) 15:12, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

::::Which you removed. You're surely not suggesting that this major union is an inappropriate subject to have an article on? Then kindly read what AfD is for and don't bring it to an inappropriate forum. Incidentally, lack of sourcing does not equate to OR. You might care to read that policy too... -- Necrothesp (talk) 17:13, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

:::I am really not appreciating your tone and attitude towards me. You have come across as very rude and patronising to me since the start of this discussion. You have insulted my views as "utter rubbish" and there is no need for your tone of language. "You might care to read that policy too" I find very insulting. Please be more civil. I am not suggesting it is an inappropriate subject at all, you are twitsting my words. I am saying the very poor quality of the article and the opinionated manner it was written in was inappropriate. I am entitled to an opinion. Thank you. Christian1985 (talk) 17:24, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

::::Christian1985, please remember that we all have to adopt a neutral point of view over Wikipedia articles. I understand that you do not trust others to fairly represent the history of the union, but even at the time people saw things differently from each other. It will be difficult to reflect all of that in the article, and different positions will need to be properly referenced to sources which may not be on the internet. But the proper place for discussing that is on the article's talk page. I do think you have made a case for Wikipedia not covering the subject at all. --AJHingston (talk) 18:54, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

::::: I think you may be missing a "not" in that last sentence :) Mcewan (talk) 19:13, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

::::::Yes, thanks! --AJHingston (talk) 10:08, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

::::I'm afraid I stand by my statement that "This is just opinionated nonsense" is utter rubbish, since it clearly is not just opinionated nonsense. Most of it is a simple history of the union. I find it rather amusing that you are offended by this when you were yourself referring to an article written by other editors as "nonsense". If you are not suggesting this is not a worthy subject for Wikipedia, then why on earth did you suggest it was deleted instead of just removing the POV sections and leaving the remainder? Which is why I pointed out that AfD was not an appropriate forum for an improvement discussion. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:27, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

:::::I am sorry but you have been nothing but rude and patronising towards me since the start of this discussion. Good manners don't take that much. My comment is NOT utter rubbish, I am entitled to an opinion and you need to respect other people's views. Just because you disagree doesn't mean I am wrong. I take on board your comment that the article is more suitable for improvement rather than deletion but I do not appreciate the bullish tone of your comments towards me, you really should learn some manners. That is not a criticism just an observation. You could have got your point across in a much friendlier manner. Thank you Christian1985 (talk) 22:17, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

::::::I really have no intention of taking lessons in manners from someone who is happy to describe an article as "opinionated nonsense". You are entitled to an opinion and I am likewise entitled to an opinion on your opinion! If you want manners then demonstrate them yourself and don't dismiss others' work in this way. You clearly don't like your opinions being challenged. -- Necrothesp (talk) 00:17, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

• Speedy keep but tag heavily for improvement -- It may be a horrid article and full of POV/OR, but the subject is clearly notable. In its time this was a very notable (and notorious) trades union. Inadequate sourcing is not a ground for deletion, if the material is (or even may be) verifiable. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:55, 8 January 2013 (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.