Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Labor Caucus (United States)

{{AFD help}}

:{{la|1=Labor Caucus (United States)}} – (View AfDView log | edits since nomination)

:({{Find sources AFD|title=Labor Caucus (United States)}})

Citations are extremely lacking. Caucus lacks any real notable sources beyond its founding, and even those are minimal. Toa Nidhiki05 15:13, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, and United States of America. Shellwood (talk) 15:36, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
• Keep. Easily passes WP:GNG, as you would expect from congressional caucus of this size: [https://www.cnbc.com/2020/12/01/biden-promises-to-be-the-most-pro-union-president-and-rep.html][https://www.cnbc.com/2021/01/29/support-of-labor-unions-is-at-65percentheres-whats-behind-the-rise.html][https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2022/apr/19/labor-dems-seek-bring-back-blue-collar-issues-cent/] The nominator seems to be looking just at the references cited in the article. StAnselm (talk) 16:06, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
• Snow Keep, needs more references, but passes GNG. Rylesbourne (talk) 15:04, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
• Keep per StAnselm. Passes WP:GNG. Sal2100 (talk) 21:39, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
• Keep passes GNG. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 04:30, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

• Keep A Caucus which holds 114 seats, the fact that this was nominated for deletion at all is ridiculous, and probably by some "anti-woke" Republican. *Face-Palm* — Preceding unsigned comment added by DailyJew (talk • contribs) 06:38, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

{{clear}}

: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.