Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Communist Party of Canada (Manitoba)


 * 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.  Sandstein  16:59, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Communist Party of Canada (Manitoba)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Article fails WP:ORG and fails to cite any sources. Was never elected. Me-123567-Me (talk) 21:45, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
 * keep It did lose elections, but it pulled Manitoba to the left and is notable. I added cites to two major books and two scholarly articles, all focused on Manitoba leftists & Communists. Rjensen (talk) 22:27, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Manitoba-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:02, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:02, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:02, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep. A political party does not have to have succeeded in electing members to a legislature to pass our notability standards for political parties; it merely has to be properly sourceable as having nominated candidates. The individual candidates, conversely, don't qualify for standalone biographies until they win — but that fact does not have a bearing on the includability of an article about the party. Just frex, the nominator lists support for the Green Party of Ontario on his userpage — but that party has never won a seat either, and I'm sure he doesn't want to set a precedent that would wipe his own party off the wikimap. (And if the nominator wants to try splitting the hair that the GPO is a provincial chapter of a national party which has elected members to other legislatures in Canada, then he'll have to try again: the CPC-M is exactly that same thing too, because Fred Rose and Dorise Nielsen really did happen.) Yes, some sourcing improvement is needed here, but our basic notability standards for political parties have been met. Bearcat (talk) 00:33, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Please, nominate the Green Party of Ontario for deletion. The big diffierence is the GPO article cites sources. This one cites very few. Me-123567-Me (talk) 04:51, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Four references is not "very few". Does it need more before it can be considered a good article? Yes. But is four enough to cover the basic notability question? Also yes. Bearcat (talk) 15:22, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Could you please show me which guideline backs that up? Thanks! Me-123567-Me (talk) 22:28, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Neither WP:GNG nor WP:ORG states a specific minimum number of sources that have to be present before they're passed — they speak about types of sourcing, not raw numbers beyond the word "multiple". It depends on context more than numbers: one source can be enough to pass GNG by itself if that source is supporting an automatic SNG pass of the "anything that meets this criterion is an automatic must-keep" variety, and ten sources can be not enough to pass GNG if they're purely local sources supporting a notability claim on the order of "president of the St. Andrews Presbyterian Church Ladies Auxiliary bake sale committee". And on top of that, a GNG-passing volume of coverage doesn't always have to be present in an article before it can be kept — if a GNG-passing volume of coverage can be shown to exist in the real world, the article can still be kept and flagged for improvement regardless of whether it's directly citing all of that coverage yet or not. And incidentally, the GPO is not a lot better sourced than this is, because it's relying almost entirely on primary sources like the party's own website about itself — the amount of reliable and independent sourcing present in that article is actually no larger than it is in this one. Bearcat (talk) 13:27, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 23:22, 28 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep -- the article needs to be cleaned up to remove intricate uncited detail, but the subject itself appears notable. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:15, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep -- Hi. New editor here, this is the first deletion discussion I've participated in, so please forgive any policy misinterpretations. It seems to me that while cleanup and further sourcing is required, I don't doubt the existence of more numerous secondary sources (newspaper articles of the day, for instance).  Also, it's not true that the party never elected anyone: although operating under a different name (LPP), party leader William Kardash was elected four times to the Manitoba Legislature serving from 1941-1957.  I feel that the Communist Party in Manitoba, while currently much reduced from its earlier incarnation, is certainly notable.  nerdgoonrant (talk) 17:58, 29 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete It seems people are quite confused. There is Communist Party of Canada and references found go there.. But what the heck is Communist Party of Canada (Manitoba)? Staszek Lem (talk) 04:11, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
 * The organization, affiliated with but separate from the federal party in exactly the same way that the Manitoba New Democratic Party is not the same thing as the federal New Democratic Party, which nominated candidates to the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba and Winnipeg City Council. Trust me, nobody's confused here. Bearcat (talk) 17:10, 1 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep - Provincial-level history of one section of the Communist Party of Canada, subject of a copious literature. As is the case with American major and minor parties, the provincial and state subsections were quasi-autonomous electoral organizations. One might make the case that this was less true with the centralized CPC than with non-communist parties, which allowed much greater local autonomy, but the principle still holds, I think, that each is a subject worthy of encyclopedic exposition. I will also note that I favor a very low bar for political organizations, their leaders, and their youth sections, since this is the sort of material that a comprehensive encyclopedia should cover. Carrite (talk) 15:10, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep. Needs serious cleanup but the subject itself is notable as a registered provincial party. RA 0808  talkcontribs 17:43, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep This Party has been running losing candidates since the 1920s. Some sources have been added since Nom. More could be found on pages of blue-linked former candidates.  Article needs major improvement, but the topic is notable.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:47, 5 November 2016 (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.