Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Party for Socialism and Liberation

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 No consensus, default to keep. —Wknight94 (talk) 02:52, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Party for Socialism and Liberation

Party for Socialism and Liberation (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Repeatedly nominated for speedy deletion by an IP address, despite being removed. Arguments for deletion were "The PSL's New York City branch is based in Harlem. Just statements is self promotion and does not belong in wikipedia. It mentions that it has a branch in Harlem throughout the article.", CSD G11, and WP:NOT#SOAPBOX. My opinion is Weak keep. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 02:48, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

• Comment No vote yet, but unless they can come up with better sources than their own website and their own magazine, I would vote to delete. They need something to verify some notability as a viable party. Fan-1967 02:53, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Hmm, I didn't consider that. I'll see if I can find anything. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 02:54, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

The PSL has since initiated a New York City branch based in Harlem, and has opened offices in Chicago. ...

It is published monthly and can be obtained from a variety of bookstores throughout the United States, as well as through PSL offices. ...

he Party for Socialism and Liberation (PSL) also maintains branches and centers in Baltimore, MD; Chicago; Los Angeles, CA; New Paltz and New York City, NY; San Jose, CA; Seattle, WA; and West Chester, PA. The PSL's New York City branch is based in Harlem. ...

Plus the only citation is themselves... This neeeds to be deleted. 68.161.73.206 02:56, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

And in addition for reason for deletion is... Wikipedia states in the What Wiki is not page

"Self-promotion. It can be tempting to write about yourself or projects you have a strong personal involvement in. However, do remember that the standards for encyclopedic articles apply to such pages just like any other, including the requirement to maintain a neutral point of view, which is difficult when writing about yourself. Creating overly abundant links and references to autobiographical articles is unacceptable. See Wikipedia:Autobiography, Wikipedia:Notability and Wikipedia:Conflict of interest."

This page fits that. 68.161.73.206 03:01, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. I'm also having difficulty coming up with a good ref for notability. It does get 26,800 GHits but none of them are great... WJBscribe ^{(WJB talk)} 03:03, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

• • What are GHits??? 68.161.73.206 03:08, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Oh, sorry. They're Google Hits. i.e. the number of entries www.google.com returns if you type the term into it... WJBscribe ^{(WJB talk)} 03:10, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

This page is not notable either. As the criteria states:

One notability criterion shared by nearly all of the subject-specific notability guidelines, as well as Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not1, is the criterion that a topic is notable if it has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, reliable published works, whose sources are independent of the subject itself.

68.161.73.206 03:06, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Well, at least its claim of being on ANSWER is true. Xiner (talk, email) 03:30, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. Sites such as http://www.broadleft.org/us.htm attest to their existence. They may be small and little-noticed by the press, but so are all the other socialist/communist parties in the U.S. Indeed the history of all these parties, and the fact that they spend 90% of their energy fighting in factional splits against each other rather than gaining new adherents, is a salient part of why socialism and communism have never gone anywhere in the U.S. Thus this article is relevant and notable. Wasted Time R 04:23, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete because, at the moment, the article's only sources are the party's own site & publication, so notability isn't established, and I think it's fair to say that not every splinter party in the U.S. needs a Wikipedia article. That said, if this article can be properly referenced and the party is shown to be more than just a fringe/splinter organization, I would suggest that the closing admin consider this a weak delete or even a neutral vote (depending on the strength of the evidence). | Mr. Darcy talk 04:39, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - Just existing does not satisfy WP:BIO notability requirements. We require political candidates to have held office and it's not even clear that this political group has accomplished anything of worth in its history...other than to distinguish itself as not the same as another communist group. Congrats to them, but I'm not seeing the notability. ju66l3r 05:50, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as per Ju66l3r. Whilst there are enough Google hits to show that they exist and are slightly well-known, they haven't actually contributed anything to make them worthy of the encyclopaedia. Chairman S. Talk ^Contribs 06:51, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
• Strong keep: Notable group. Article could definately be expanded. WWP is one of the major left parties in the US, and plays a prominent role in anti-war movement etc.. The PSL split saw several high ranking leaders depart from WWP, including former presidential candidate. --Soman 12:16, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Delete does not meet the notability requirements - only source is their own websites. Also, is written in such a way for self-promotion and violates the "Wikipedia is not a soapbox"

SetofFive 12:29, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

• Strong keep Deleting a political party on non-notability seems very marginal reasoning. Unpopularity cannot be a reason not to have an article. Furthermore, this provides useful information to users. Though, this article is in serious need of rewrite. Nlsanand 21:59, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete We can verify that they exist, but not much more. Even among below-the-radar small political groups, nothing makes this one look significant.Fan-1967 22:54, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Speedy Delete Advertisement: "It is published monthly and can be obtained from a variety of bookstores throughout the United States, as well as through PSL offices." Can this be any blatant? What does the article need to say? Call us at 1-900-555-5555 to get a copy of our mag? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.80.242.153 (talk • contribs) at 00:27, 8 January 2007.

• Delete, without prejudice if notability can be established later. Right now, no evidence they pass WP:ORG. Seraphimblade 00:39, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

• Keep based on Broadleft cite provided by User:Wasted Time R above. Also per Broadleft this is splinter of Workers World Party, a more substantial group withe an en:wikipedia article 3 yrs + without AfD Edivorce 00:43, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
  • CommentYou don't expect that all the groups in that list gets a wiki article. Not all of those groups are notable. I would also dispute the website as a source of notability. This is not a reliable source and it is bias. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Non-scholarly_sources I don't see how being a group coming from another notable group is substantial to say it is notable. SetofFive 13:21, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment, broadleft.org is highly reputable on this subject. It is probably the most comprehensive collection on information on left movements around the world. Regarding notability, broadleft.org does practice similiar notibility requirements as on wiki, i.e. not listing locally limited groups. --Soman 13:40, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, notable left group and significant in the antiwar movement. General Idea 06:12, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment You just say that without siting really any sources. You just assert it without proof. SetofFive 13:21, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
    • They are the leading group in ANSWER which is the largest antiwar coalition in the US.[1] [2]. General Idea 20:58, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Somewhat significant as the group behind International ANSWER. Needs cleanup to guard against self-promotion and the like. Dragomiloff 01:15, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Many websites, including the one mentioned here, are as authoritative as any printed source. The use of them as sources hasto be judged individually. The evidence here is certainly good enough.DGG 05:10, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
• Comment for Admin Closing this AfD I have placed some lengthy comments in the Discussion section of this AfD that I ask you to consider before closing.Edivorce 13:59, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
• Comment for Admin Closing this AfD I have also placed some comments summing up why I believe this article should be deleted (should had been a speedy one in my opinion) SetofFive 14:47, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
• Comment for Admin Closing this AfD none of the links provided meet WP:RS or WP:V SetofFive 15:03, 11 January 2007 (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.