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


 * 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 delete. Fails WP:GNG. Nothing presented by the keeps, nor any sourcing in this debate, convinces me that this subject merits inclusion at this time.

Thanks everyone for participating and if you disagree with this decision please take it to Deletion review - unless there is a tech issue. Thanks for assuming good faith and happy holidays! Missvain (talk) 17:42, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

American Party of Labor
AfDs for this article:


 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

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)  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)
 * 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: . 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&#32;• 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&#32; 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&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * 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)
 * 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 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  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&#32; on reply) 23:48, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

The daily Targum article clearly fits the criteria of " significant coverage in a reliable secondary source that is independent of the subject. " In regard specifically to the daily Targum article; Significant: The entire article is about an event organized and operated by the American Party of Labor and its student wing. It is clearly significant coverage.
 * 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)
 * Again, you're just ignoring SIRS, you're ignoring NORG, and you're ignoring pretty much all of our global consensus. The interview is not completely independent or a secondary source. You're deliberately ignoring our policies to push an obviously non notable fanclub onto this encyclopedia. Chess (talk) (please use&#32; on reply) 17:06, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment "fanclub" -- Again, you are demonstrating your own bias and prejudice. Perhaps this encyclopedia would benefit from less snide remarks and vulgar language ("fucking blogspot") and more professionalism.  If you deem the article to not be notable, fine that is your right; but snark, attitude and vulgarity are not helpful.Visigoth500 (talk) 18:10, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
 * A random Blogger/blogspot blog is not a reliable source. It's ludicrous that people are saying that it is. Reliable sources/Perennial sources lists 21 different discussions in which editors have said that blogspot is generally unreliable as a WP:Self published source. Deeming it reliable here would be equivalent to just ignoring pretty much the endless discussions among editors for years that no, blogspot sources are not reliable and cannot be used to establish notability. It's illogical and flies in the face of WP:LOCALCONSENSUS.
 * And yes, I'm calling this political party a fanclub. On a fundamental level, political parties are fan clubs of ideologies and ideologues. If we treat this entity like any other fan club (which we judge by quality sourcing regardless of how much turnout their fans provide) rather than discussing its political importance in the realm of communist parties, it becomes clear what needs to be done with this page. Chess (talk) (please use&#32; on reply) 19:24, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment You are quite correct that "whataboutism" is a not response to notability. The article must stand or fall on it's own merits.  However, the question of "selective enforcement has been raised and is a valid concern.  Visigoth500 (talk) 23:04, 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. — Evann31 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 16:59, 15 December 2021 (UTC).
 * Comment This is the first (and thusfar only) contribution to Wikipedia made by this account. I struggle to believe this is anything but either canvassing or sockpuppetry. Thereppy (talk) 22:28, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment Irrelevant. What matters are the sources, not who provides them.Visigoth500 (talk) 23:04, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Going to start an SPI. Chess (talk) (please use&#32; on reply) 22:32, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Please do. A brand new account making arguments identical (nearly verbatim) to a user in a heated deletion discussion sends off way too many alarm bells, especially when that user is so quick to defend the new account. Thereppy (talk) 23:24, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
 * The checkuser at Sockpuppet investigations/Unrequestedsillything says that, , are unrelated in terms of IPs, and there's not that much evidence aside from that. It'd be inappropriate at this post to continue discussing alleged socking here. I'm leaving this note here so it's clear what happened on SPI case given that the accusation was also made here. Chess (talk) (please use&#32; on reply) 04:04, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not concerned about either of those users, really just . Nothing strikes me as odd about the other accounts' behavior-just two people with similar interests and (per user profiles) similar ideological dispositions. (by the way Visigoth, I sincerely apologize if that isn't whats happening here. I hope you understand the reasons we are suspicious) Thereppy (talk) 09:49, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment. Here's a WP:SIRS table that examines every source currently included in the article. None of the sources currently satisfy WP:SIRS despite the WP:SPAs showing up in droves claiming that they do. Chess (talk) (please use&#32; on reply) 21:49, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
 * comment

Reliable: The daily Targum has won the Columbia Scholastic Press Association's Gold Crown Award multiple times, it established a separate publishing company to ensure independent coverage from Rutgers. It also has its own wikipedia page. If ever a student newspaper is reliable it is now.

Secondary: While there are brief snippets and direct quotes from members, the author reports on the protest as well as giving additional context with regards to the Dakota Access pipeline in general as well as other protests regarding the pipeline. This is a secondary source with regards to the Party

Independent: The daily Targum has no association with the American party of labor nor does the author as far as I can tell. There is no reason to believe this journalism isn't independent of the American Party of Labor.AxderWraith Crimson (talk) 03:02, 16 December 2021 (UTC)


 * You and keep saying that the "All Marxist-Leninist Union" is the APL's "student wing", yet I'm not really seeing a source on that. It's not mentioned in any of the links you've posted and Binging for "All Marxist-Leninist Union rutgers" provides nothing. Even if it is true, it's not relevant since WP:INHERITORG says that entities do not "inherit" notability if a sub-entity or parent entity is notable. Even if the AMLU is notable due to coverage in that article (which I doubt it is), that does not mean that the APL is notable. Chess (talk) (please use&#32; on reply) 03:10, 16 December 2021 (UTC)




 * Delete User:Chess' analysis is convincing, there is nothing that meets WP:RS. --RaiderAspect (talk) 03:00, 16 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment Now there are accusations of sock puppetry, I created this account specifically to challenge the baseless and desperate attempts to repress this party and the desperation, beyond hiding behind subjectivity of "notability" of direct and independent sources, they now accuse the multitude of opponents, Axder Wraith, Unrequestedsillythings and myself, who knows who else of not even existing! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Evann31 (talk • contribs) 05:04, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Note, You probably aren't doing yourself any favors by admitting to creating a new account for the sole purpose of challenging others arguments in one particular topic. That's the definition of WP:SPA. makes a very convincing argument in this case, and though I'm not voting in this regard, you'd be better off just providing your rebuttal of Chess's argument. Just my viewpoint, take it for what it's worth. Spf121188 (talk) 17:32, 16 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Reply A "particular topic" so repetitively brought up on flimsy and subjective bases. A topic founded in political motivation and not in ethics or "rules". It stands that the charges of sockpuppetry further prove the desperation of the handful of editors who are grasping at straws to save their subjective arguments of "notability" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Evann31 (talk • contribs) 19:53, 16 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete - Most of the references are not independent or notable. It won't pass WP:GNG However, I would like to thank User:Chess for his thorough work on the references. Mommmyy (talk) 20:01, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete - I am going to vote, and vote to delete. has a masterful argument for this based on their thorough table assessing validity/reliability of articles. It simply doesn't pass WP:GNG. in reply to , you're still not helping yourself. Spf121188 (talk) 20:14, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete - Just doesn't pass the test. GoodDay (talk) 18:05, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete per the detailed source assessment. No evidence of notability (t &#183; c)  buidhe  04:27, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete per the source assessment, and thanks to for putting it together. ―  Tartan357  Talk 00:46, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment -- If the article could be provided with sources, it might be kept to show that it is insignificant. These left wing groups are prone to splintering.  I was looking at articles on white supremacist groups with a few hundred members and these had articles, so why not  these neo-Marxist ones.  Peterkingiron (talk) 18:01, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
 * , that is the definition of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Can’t use that as a reason for notability. Spf121188 (talk) 20:25, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
 * , No. But that raises the question of "selective enforcement."  Which is a valid concern.Visigoth500 (talk) 02:16, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Reply, I understand your point, but if there are other articles out there that shouldn't be, nominate them for deletion and discuss there. It doesn't have bearing over this decision. Spf121188 (talk) 13:54, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
 * If it makes you feel better I'm going to go around and nominate other non notable communist parties for deletion. Chess (talk) (please use&#32; on reply) 03:40, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Reply, Just can't resist the snark, eh? Well, good luck on your crusade to save "our encyclopedia" from "socialist fancruft/spam"  Translation -- From mentioning the existence of somehting you don't like.Visigoth500 (talk) 15:51, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment, You won't do any favors for yourself or the article with those kinds of remarks. Spf121188 (talk) 16:06, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment, Not asking for any favors. I thought that articles stand or fall on their own merit, not on what comments are made here.  Interesting that Chess' "fucking blogspots," "Tankie fanclub," saving "our encyclopedia" from "socialist fancruft/spam," and "If it makes you feel better I'm going to go around and nominate other non notable communist parties for deletion" gets a pass; but calling them out for vulgarity, snark, and unprofessionalism elicits your disapproval. Visigoth500 (talk) 16:58, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Reply, My disapproval carries zero weight. took the time to analyze every source provided, and gave a very well worded argument in regards to the articles merits, and created a table for everyone to easily understand. I understand that this is a passion-filled topic, but Chess' comments notwithstanding, they at least took the time and effort to make an argument based on merit. Spf121188 (talk) 17:20, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I spend much time PRODing and AfDing or rejecting at AfC other kinds of fancruft, like miscellaneous student clubs, dream SMP micronations, or most recently non notable subparts of universities. Generally within a certain topic there's often quite a lot of accumulation of articles of questionable notability as time goes on and nobody notices. This seems to be what is happening here. Fans of a topic come on and create articles that don't have good sourcing on non notable topics. When something is fancruft, it's fancruft. That seems to be what's happened with communist parties. What's shocking to me is that I didn't see how it's possible to honestly see blogspot blogs as reliable sources. It's the prototypical example of a self published source.
 * Since you were raised the question about "selective enforcement" given that there are other communist parties in existence that are less notable and still have articles, I've gone ahead and answered by nominating others for deletion. Chess (talk) (please use&#32; on reply) 17:30, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Far-right microparties get a lot more mainstream attention due to their memberships' tendency to accumulate criminal convictions. Infamy will get you a wikipedia article just as easily as fame. --RaiderAspect (talk) 07:12, 20 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep: What harm is it doing? Left parties, even large ones, often don't get mainstream coverage and I think it is legitimate to use left sources for these niche topics. I don't see why Wikipedia shouldn't list small parties. Delete arguments of the " tankie stalinist fanclub of an Albanian dictator" variety are not convincing: it's not our job to only list parties we like. If deleted, should redirect to International Conference of Marxist–Leninist Parties and Organizations (Unity & Struggle). BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:33, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment, Your !vote is clearly against WP:HARMLESS, and not a valid reason for keep. However, your suggestion for a redirect is a good alternative, since redirects are cheap. Spf121188 (talk) 14:09, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks . Wasn't aware of that policy. I guess what I mean is that having a page on this topic, even if only a stub, means that people looking for information on left parties will find something of use, and future editors can build on it if it becomes more notable, and the sources, while not particularly strong, are mostly reliable for reporting on niche left topics, so I am not convinced of a need to purge the article. BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:57, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Reply, I can understand that viewpoint, and that's a well-reasoned argument. IMO, a re-direct like you mentioned above may actually make it easier for people looking for information, especially being all in one place. An admin or closer will determine if the article stands, whether or not the nomination was made in good faith. Spf121188 (talk) 17:10, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Reply said: "...and the sources, while not particularly strong, are mostly reliable for reporting on niche left topics..." A google books search found some sources that mention the party and its newspaper/blog:   . These seem reliable enough. I'll leave it to other editors as to whether or not these should be incorporated into the article.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 17:33, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
 * None of those sources satisfy WP:ORGDEPTH. In fact, ORGDEPTH explicitly says that "quotations from an organization's personnel as story sources" aren't WP:SIGCOV. The first two hyperlinked sources are just quotes from the Red Phoenix. The third source is a list of communist parties in America. ORGDEPTH explicitly says that "inclusion in lists of similar organizations" does not satisfy the significant coverage requirements. Chess (talk) (please use&#32; on reply) 19:35, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Just pointing out that WP:HARMLESS is not Wikipedia policy, as stated at the top of that essay. Centre Left Right  ✉ 08:49, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Correct, it is not a ‘’policy’’, just an argument that should generally be avoided for rationale to keep/delete on its own. Spf121188 (talk) 09:31, 21 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete, Chess's excellent source analysis showcases that the party has not yet gained the necessary media coverage to pass WP:GNG. Devonian Wombat (talk) 22:29, 21 December 2021 (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.