Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/American Party of Labor (2nd nomination)

American Party of Labor

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/American Party of Labor
• Articles for deletion/American Party of Labor (2nd nomination)
• Articles for deletion/American Party of Labor (3rd nomination)

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

• How to contribute
• Introduction to deletion process
• Guide to deletion (glossary)
• Help, my article got nominated for deletion!

American Party of Labor (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 article concerns a tiny political party, for which the only sources given are outlets directly affiliated with the party and two personal blogs. Searching for additional information, I was only able to find the party's official website, a facebook page with around 4,200 followers, a twitter account with 1497 followers, a student newspaper article from 2016 and a few mentions of the wikipedia article itself. Other than that, nothing.

It appears that the overwhelming majority of attention to this party comes from the wikipedia article itself rather than any actions taken by the party, with the page receiving an average of 2330 monthly pageviews in the past year

In light of all of this, I do not believe this meets notability guidelines.

Thereppy (talk) 23:47, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:01, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:01, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
• Weak Keep For a small Communist/Hoxhaist party, its article is better sourced than those of similar organizations. I count five not affiliated with the party itself: [1][2][3][4][5]. EDIT: revising vote based on Unrequestedsillything's observations below. I failed to consider the APL's membership with the ICMLPO, which further establishes notability.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 01:12, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment Of the five pieces you linked, a potential case for notability can made with the first article, which is a full length interview conducted by Evrensel Daily. This coverage is undoubtedly independent and significant, but reliability is harder to assess. The English language site does not give information on editorial standards (or even give the name of the interviewer(s)!), and as I can not read Turkish, I can't determine if this information is available on its parent site either. That said, if this wiki article is to be believed (I can't assess the reliability of the Turkish language source this table is based on), Evrensel's circulation within Turkey is substantial: Over 2% that of Turkey's largest daily newspaper, which is very impressive for a Marxist-Leninist newspaper in a country with negligible Marxist-Leninist political popularity or influence. If reliability can be established, it makes a solid case against deletion. However, the other four pieces linked definitely cannot be used to describe the American Party of Labor as notable. The Worker's World article (2nd link) does not offer significant coverage, listing it in a single sentence alongside several other groups as being involved in a small street protest (for which I could find no other news coverage). 'Fight Back! News' (3rd link) is an online newspaper, but I can find no mention of any editorial policies on the site, nor anything else to assess the reliability of its coverage. Either way, its coverage of the American Party of Labor is not significant, consisting of a one-sentence mention of the group as one of three groups that organized a counter-protest which, like the protest described in the Worker's World article, is apparently not reported on by any other sources. The Spanish-language source (4th link) is a translation of [this article] published by the American Party of Labor itself while the 'New Jersey Anti-War Agenda' (5th link) is a personal blog. Thereppy (talk) 22:49, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
    • Comment I was incorrect about the fourth source, but it appears even though it was originally published by the APL, it was subsequently translated and republished by a third party. So I believe my original point still stands: it is better sourced than other Wikipedia pages for smaller communist parties. At least one strong source with some weaker sources, along with their membership with the ICMLPO that Unrequestedsillything mentioned below, establishes notability IMO.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 17:09, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment I've added a source from the National Alliance Against Racist and Political Repression, a fairly large national organization—the party in question signed the refounding document. Jpalameda1865 (talk) 22:09, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
• Keep As C.J. Griffin has pointed out, it already has more independent sources than similar pages which have been deemed notable. Its official status with the ICMLPO, another notable organization, also helps here. Unrequestedsillything (talk) 23:28, 4 December 2021 (UTC) — Unrequestedsillything (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Comment Thank you for mentioning this. I have revised my vote accordingly.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 17:09, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

  Inherited notability isn't an argument. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 23:30, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

• Keep per C.J. Griffin. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 18:34, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
• Keep The article is adequately sourced. Deletion nomination seems frivolous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Visigoth500 (talk • contribs) 15:52, 6 December 2021 (UTC) — Visigoth500 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: More discussion or finding of sources. Thereppy makes a good rebuttal of the sources, which have not been answered.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:31, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 06:16, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

• Comment How often is this going to be re-listed? The majority of comments are "Keep," and as has been noted several times, it is better sourced than other similar articles. Visigoth500 (talk) 17:55, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

• @Visigoth500: A quorum is usually seeked when an item is relisted. The AfD would be treated as an expired PROD. – The Grid (talk) 23:50, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

• Delete. The keep !voters are making questionable non-policy based arguments. You can't just say "For a small Communist/Hoxhaist party, its article is better sourced than those of similar organizations."; that's blatantly WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. None of the sources CJ Griffin mentioned satisfy WP:SIRS. The first is an interview with one of the members by a fellow traveller; comprised mostly of the interview itself. This doesn't qualify as "completely independent" nor is it a secondary source. The second and third sources are single-sentence mentions. The fourth and fifth sources are fucking blogspot pages. It's shocking Visigoth500 accuses the nom of "frivolous" behaviour when the !voters here are ignoring policy to push what is essentially socialist fancruft/spam onto this encyclopedia.

Unrequestedsillything's argument is laughable. It's just a rehashing of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, that this article has "more sources" and should be kept. They ignore the garbage quality of said sources and then goes onto say that this organization inherits notability because it's a part of the larger organization. WP:NORG very explicitly says in WP:INHERITORG that organizations do not inherit notability from being part of or affiliated with a larger organization. Then the other two !votes are just "per nom" trash. I can see why this was relisted twice; the "keep" arguments are meme-tier and Thereppy is right. This party is non-notable.

I would ask the closing admin here to do what we always do for non-notable organizations whose fans show up to !vote keep while disregarding our notability policies. Close as "delete", because AfD is WP:NOTAVOTE. This tankie stalinist fanclub of an Albanian dictator is non-notable and should be treated as such, regardless of the stature of the people !voting keep. I'm going to go post this on WP:Wikiproject Politics to see if we can get some more people. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 23:48, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

• Comment "This tankie fanclub of an Albanian dictator" -- Politically motivated bias Visigoth500 (talk) 00:20, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
• Keep It should be firstly noted that "fellow travelers" are not against policy, especially considering in the interview it isn't the APL recursively reporting on itself, but rather an outside source doing so. In addition, I have also added a source documenting the actions of the party. Notably they don't even seem to be a "fellow traveler", or associated with the party after a cursory glance.AxderWraith Crimson (talk) 01:36, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment It should be also noted that the new source added is from Rutger's official student newspaper. Student newspapers, while not as desirable for notability as mainstream media, can sometimes be considered reliable enough depending on how well established they are. Given that The Daily Targum is the official newspaper of a major university, and even has its own Wikipedia article, there is arguably a case here. Unrequestedsillything (talk) 09:12, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

• Keep Multiple new and indendent, notable sources with their own pages have been added to the sources with new information elucidating the activity of this party with again, its own independent source that in no way violates policy. As seen with the comments above, the repetitive motion to delete this page is politically motivated, not honestly founded in the desires to strengthen content on wikipedia. On those grounds alone, on top of the new sources, of their validity, there is no reason this idea of deletion should be at all entertained, once again.