Talk:Electrical, Electronic, Telecommunications and Plumbing Union

	Organized Labour portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Organized Labour, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Organized Labour on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Organized LabourWikipedia:WikiProject Organized LabourTemplate:WikiProject Organized Labourorganized labour articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

United Kingdom Low‑importance

	United Kingdom portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject United KingdomUnited Kingdom articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article was nominated for deletion on 7 January 2013 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep.

[Untitled][edit]

i am doing research on becoming a union plumber can anyone tell me the benefits

NPOV Check[edit]

Sections of this article contain highly emotive language, e.g:

...stuck two fingers up at the TUC.

They were entirely duped.

Which leads me to suspect that the article could be more neutral in its outlook.

--Smallbone10 (talk) 22:14, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Abbreviation[edit]

If you abbreviate 'Electrical, Electronic, Telecommunications and Plumbing Union' you get EETPU, not EEPTU. The temptation in trade unions is to include TU, and EEPTU was a common mistake, but it is wrong; as some of the union's opponents put it in the 1980s, it's easy to remember because it ends with 'Pu' which is the chemical symbol for Plutonium which a lot of its members were engaged in making in nuclear power stations. Sam Blacketer (talk) 08:29, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion[edit]

I have listed this article for deletion. It is poorly written, full of opinionated nonsense "sticks two fingers up at the TUC" to name just one example, it has no sources or references whatsoever and doesn't really have any importance or notability. Thank you Christian1985 (talk) 00:13, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I and another editor have successively removed the deletion tag. There was a possibly poorly supported paragraph that might need better sourcing, but deleting the whole article was totally without justification. That an article may be prejudiced, is in any case a reason for editing, not deletion. DGG ( talk ) 02:51, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]