Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of striking US workers by year, Bureau of Labor Statistics (1916 - present)

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 Labor history of the United States. The arguments to keep are very weak; the BLS is a reliable source, but it is a primary source, and statistics from it are insufficient to justify a standalone article. Arguments to delete based on NOTSTATS have not been rebutted. I do not doubt that the history of strikes in the US has received extensive coverage in reliable sources, but that is a different scope. There is a clear consensus against keeping this as a standalone page, but this discussion does not rule out related titles being split from the Labor history page. Vanamonde (Talk) 21:47, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of striking US workers by year, Bureau of Labor Statistics (1916 - present)

[edit]

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

List of striking US workers by year, Bureau of Labor Statistics (1916 - present) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is a graph, with numbers below it. No context is given to the numbers (why are certain years higher than others? How did the labor movement evolve over this time period?). Not seeing notability. Oaktree b (talk) 18:43, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

--A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 19:17, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I just saw that LoomCreek is on wiki break for several weeks so they won't be able to participate here. If deleted, could someone draftify the article in case they intend to to do more with it?
--A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 19:19, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, I think it meets the guidelines for inclusion on a few fronts.
First this information has been heavily documented by a reliable source, The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics for the last hundred years. Because it's considered important historical information both for it's effect on the economy and politics. See for example the Strike wave of 1945–1946, and how it led to the passing of the Taft–Hartley Act.

Secondly, I assumed the title of the list gave enough information for what each number meant. With the first being the year, and the second being the total number of striking workers that year. If others agree that sub-headers should be added that can be done.

Lastly, this list has a valuable informational purpose, per WP:LISTPURP. It simply takes the information already available from the reliable source, U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, and has it all in one accessible page.

(also A.B is right, I am on a somewhat of semi-break but not fully. It's just to get me to step-back a bit more over these next few weeks. I will still see messages to me though.)--LoomCreek (talk) 19:26, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Notability of lists (whether titled as "List of Xs" or "Xs") is based on the group. One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, per the above guidelines; notable list topics are appropriate for a stand-alone list."
The history of strikes in the United States is certainly notable and this is useful information not readily available elsewhere in one place, even at the United States Bureau of Labor Statistics (from what I can tell).
--A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 19:35, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's correct, BLS' most comprehensive one visit page is 1947-present, while the other data is from their yearly strike reports.- LoomCreek (talk) 20:42, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm okay with a keep (Update: with all the new added context I lean keep over merge now) though the page needs a sentence or two to establish context. But, might this be more valuable in a broader context, merged into an article like Labor history of the United States? —siroχo 21:35, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Siroxo you make a great point about merging to that article. It's would add value to that article. Furthermore, more people would see the data LoomCreek has prepared. @LoomCreek, what do you think?
    --A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 21:43, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    While I'm fine with either as long as the information remains. After the suggestion, merging with the Labor history of the US seems like a really smart move. It would definitely add value and context to the article. So if that becomes the consensus I'm in full support of it. -- LoomCreek (talk) 21:50, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete clearly fails WP:NOTSTATS: tatistics that lack context or explanation can reduce readability and may be confusing; accordingly, statistics should be placed in tables to enhance readability, and articles with statistics should include explanatory text providing context. The "list" is statistics. I have no idea how this has captured the imagination of so many keep !voters when it absolutely completely clearly fails WP:NOT as a stand-alone article. I have absolutely no problem if it's merged and discussed somewhere, though. SportingFlyer T·C 21:55, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The compilation also appears to be WP:OR - the statistics themselves aren't OR, but the compilation as a whole appears to be as they've never been discussed as a set by anyone, and the page only includes primary sources. Absolutely firm delete on this. SportingFlyer T·C 21:57, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Per, WP:CALC "Routine calculations do not count as original research, provided there is consensus among editors that the results of the calculations are correct, and a meaningful reflection of the sources. Basic arithmetic, such as adding numbers, converting units, or calculating a person's age, is almost always permissible." and
    WP:ORMEDIA "Source information does not need to be in text form—any form of information, such as maps, charts, graphs, and tables may be used to provide source information. Routine interpretation of such media is not original research provided that there is consensus among editors that the techniques used are correctly applied and a meaningful reflection of the sources." (bolding added)
    This is simply listing the accepted numbers of strikers each year according to the U.S. BLS, a highly reputable source, it doesn't even count as WP:Synthesis since each piece of data is discrete and not mixed in any shape way or form. - LoomCreek (talk) 22:29, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It still clearly fails WP:NOTSTATS and WP:NLIST as the figures have not been discussed as a group by reliable secondary sources. Furthermore, these are not technically calculations. The fact a keep !voter above has even specifically mentioned this information isn't available elsewhere in one place makes it clear that this doesn't qualify for the encyclopaedia as a stand-alone article. It may be able to be used elsewhere, though. SportingFlyer T·C 23:32, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    As a note, it doesn't fail WP:NOTSTATS anymore, as siroχo added the introduction you asked for. Sorry about that intial oversight.

    The frequency of strikes per year is something discussed by reliable secondary sources, one of which already included was the U.S BLS compilations of their own data from their previous primary sources (see Wikipedia:Party and person). I've since added two other new secondary sources, which cover the extent of information. I think it would've still met policy otherwise but I've added that.

    I'm very much in support of merging it into the Labor history of the United States to be clear. It seems to be the best solution. If that works for those involved, I can go ahead and do that. -- LoomCreek (talk) 00:28, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    No, it still distinctly fails WP:NOTSTATS. You cannot save a notstats article by adding two sentences of unsourced text. SportingFlyer T·C 08:55, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It's sourced to be clear. See the Strikes in the United States 1880-1936. Given that the rough consensus seems to be merging, we could do that. - LoomCreek (talk) 17:36, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I added some context, feel free to improve upon it. —siroχo 22:04, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Adding an actual sentence isn't demonstrating it passes NLIST, though. It's just a collection of primary sources. SportingFlyer T·C 23:33, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Labor history of the United States. This article fails WP:NLIST and the source is better suited for enhancing an existing article. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 00:53, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Labor history of the United States as there is no reason to have an article just to hold a single table/graph. The list of sources is a problem but there surely must be some way to deal with that Mangoe (talk) 02:42, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
On second thought, delete as WP:OR per @SportingFlyer:'s analysis. Among other issues, it's far from clear that the numbers from different eras are directly comparable, as counting methodology could have changed. The point made by the graph is so obvious that one would think we could source it from some secondary analysis. At any rate, there's no reason for this to stand as a separate article even were it more acceptably sourced. Mangoe (talk) 02:48, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I understand the caution but I can assure you the methodology is consistent for the time period this covers. See, Strikes in the United States 1880-1936 for an for in depth analysis of the early data collection methods.
To confirm this has been followed since, see BLS Handbook of Methods for Surveys and Studies : Bulletin of the United States Bureau of Labor Statistics
From the second source, "No Federal agency collected national information on stoppages occurring during the 1906-13 period. In 1914, relying exclusively on printed sources, the Bureau of Labor Statistics attempted to compile a re­cord of all strikes and lockouts during the year. In the following year, the Bureau inaugurated a method for the collection of strike and lockout material which has been followed, with modifications, since that time."
The jist of both sources descriptions of collection methods is that they've been consistent since 1915, with data becoming more detailed in 1926 with the creation of monthly reports.
-- LoomCreek (talk) 03:12, 28 July 2023 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_striking_US_workers_by_year,_Bureau_of_Labor_Statistics_(1916_-_present)&oldid=1168613427"