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 keep. Whether or not the page is moved can be decided elsewhere. Sarahj2107 (talk) 12:36, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Scranton General Strike (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

This is a term found almost exclusively on...wikipedia. The article is based on an obscure, POV-ridden source. This is properly part of the 1877 railroad strike article. POV fork. Anmccaff (talk) 18:07, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To expand: the title is a phrase found just about exclusively on Wikipedia itself, in this article. Both scholarship and contemporary accounts saw this as part of the'77 Railroad Strike.

Next, the subject is treated adequately, fairly completely and honestly in the Railroad Strikes of 1877 piece. This duplicates better work, and is a POV fork.

The most important problem is the first. Wiki shouldn't show ideas that don't have sources outside Wikipedia itself, and this is clear WP:OR. The term just isn't used elsewhere much. Anmccaff (talk) 04:01, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:49, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:50, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:50, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:50, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment You'll have to make your case about POV but I don't think there's a WP:NUKEANDPAVE argument here for deletion. I agree this event hasn't been discussed separately from the other strikes of the time but there's perhaps too much material to merge it all back into the main article. This article needs work but I'm not sure deletion is the answer here. Chris Troutman (talk) 23:19, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep and RM. The name is ORish, but "Great Railroad Strike of 1877 in Scranton", while a less pretty name, might be notable. This might be a valid subarticle, and I don't see why it shouldn't be kept. This should be at WP:RM rather then here. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:12, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As I think on it more, I suspect that is wrong, too, in a sense: the Scranton troubles really weren't about the railroad strike, except as it facilitated problems between some of the mine operators and some of the miners. A better article might be on labor problems in Scranton, taken over time. Either way, the title is OR. Not a single cite brought in used it except as a descriptive, and the violence, the actual subject of the article, began after the strike became particular to steel and mining. For this article as it stands The Lackawanna Avenue Riot would be a better title.Anmccaff (talk) 02:16, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Snow Keep: Four of the five sources are specific to Scranton, which establishes the notability of the event in itself. There is clearly enough material to justify a standalone article. There are no valid reasons for deletion; and whatever concerns may exist about the best title, AfD is not cleanup. --RexxS (talk) 12:18, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Two are not specific to Scranton, and the ways that the other three are are directly opposed to this article.

• the first NYT piece explicitly states that the wider strike was make by workers who were well paid, and intimidated others into participating. It also states that, contrary to the implications of the article, the Scranton mayor was assaulted, and that force against the mob was justified. The entire article stands against the wiki piece it is being mendaciously used to support.
• The final Times cite refutes the article almost completely, and points out that the claims the article advances were found to be civil and criminal libel. No support there. Anmccaff (talk) 14:06, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

These seem a lot like arguments for changing the content of the article (perfectly fine), and not necessarily for whether it is notable. TimothyJosephWood 15:28, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Except for the riot and shooting, which occurred -after the strike began breaking, i.e., when it was no longer, in any sense, general, this incident is a part of the '77 Railroad strikes as much as any other, and should be covered there. Anmccaff (talk) 01:50, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep or Redirect whichever is needed, as this seems convincing enough to at least keep somewhere. Asking DGG for his analysis. SwisterTwister talk 04:44, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. sufficient sources for notability , as also with many of the other railroad strikes of that year: they each are appropriate for a separate article. What the name of this article should be can be discussed separately. . I note that the judgements of the 19th century NYT on the meirts of the strike is a POV statement; that they covered it shows notability , but their conclusion should not be used out of historical context. DGG ( talk ) 08:44, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep this is notable enough and well sourced. And yes a historical marker prepared by a historical site is a genuine RS --the text is what matters and it's good. Rjensen (talk) 04:52, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is a new full-length scholarly monograph on the labor history of Scranton, that gives heavy emphasis to this strike. Azzarelli, Margo L.; Marnie Azzarelli (2016). Labor Unrest in Scranton. Arcadia Publishing. Portions the book are online at Amazon.com. That should lay to rest fears that the strike Is poorly documented or little-known. Rjensen (talk) 10:14, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's a straw man. No one raised the notion that the strike was poorly documented or little known, just that the documentation generally does not fit the wider strike itself as separately notable. The Lackawanna Avenue Riot is the notable part of the article, and the railroad strike had already ended in Scranton then, and workers were returning to other places as well. The violence this article centers on happened after, and perhaps because the widespread strike had broken. If this deserves a separate existence, it should focus on, and be named for, the part that is separately noteworthy. Anmccaff (talk) 17:05, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also, and this is not a trivial point, Arcadia Publishing has very little scholarly oversight. Some of their work is excellent, some horrendous, but it is all near to self-published by local authors, and heavily driven by copyright-free illustrations, in the way Dover Press is dependent on dead authors. Anmccaff (talk) 17:13, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Northamerica1000 or anyone else, can we close this and be done with it? Consensus seems almost unanimous for keep. The original inspiration per my comment on OP's talk was that the author suggested deletion and that it be merged with the larger article. The article has clearly now grown to a point where merger seems unlikely, and is sourced to the point where WP:NOTE failure is a snowball. Discussion continues on the the talk to improve the article, as it should. There is no reason to keep this AfD open. TimothyJosephWood 12:42, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Given that there is a suggestion to take it to RM not yet discussed, that would be precipitous. Anmccaff (talk) 17:13, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Closing this AfD does not preempt taking the issue to RM.TimothyJosephWood 17:31, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - The Railroad Strike(s) of 1877 was a broad movement, this is legitimate coverage of a specific local aspect of that movement, in my estimation. If there is POV in the piece it can be addressed via the normal editing process. Carrite (talk) 02:16, 18 May 2016 (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.