Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Committees of Correspondence for Democracy and Socialism


 * 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. Star  Mississippi  14:40, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Committees of Correspondence for Democracy and Socialism

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

Article contains only three sources, only one of which is independent and does not do anything other than say this group exists. An examination of other top mentions finds that all mentions of this organization are simply acknowledgement that people are members of it or that it exists - no actual detail about it, which means they don’t qualify under WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. Any useful information can be moved to relevant pages. Toa Nidhiki05 19:03, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Politics.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:21, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment. I did a bit of searching and found a bit of info on them: NY Times, Problems of Post-Communism (Republished her?), "Ideological Basis of the Organizational Crisis of Marxism-Leninism in the United States" (mentioned? Don't have access). Not sure how helpful that is. &#8211; MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 19:22, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
 * The NYT article does mention them, although mostly in the context of a legal struggle with members and the Communist Party. Certainly the most comprehensive look I've seen, which isn't saying much. Toa Nidhiki05 19:32, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep This faction is important in the history of the CPUSA, and it is surprising, in a sense, that it still exists over 30 years later. The sources discovered by MJL are very good, and here is another one. Cullen328 (talk) 23:51, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep please read WP:BEFORE and remember notability has nothing to do with current content. Sources provided here more than adequate. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 09:06, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
 * In Toa Nidhiki05's defense, I'm pretty sure a WP:BEFORE happened, but didn't find the same sources as me because I used different methods. &#8211; MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 20:01, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
 * BEFORE did happen, and I strongly maintain this organization is not notable. A source mentioning the existence of an organization is in no way proof of its notability; read WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. Toa Nidhiki05 20:09, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep per above. Another example of this editor mass nominating articles without doing WP:BEFORE.--User:Namiba 17:08, 25 March 2022 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.