Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Communist Party of Greece (Marxist–Leninist)


 * 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The result was withdrawn by nominator. Thine Antique Pen (talk) 00:24, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Communist Party of Greece (Marxist–Leninist)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Total lack of supporting references and sources. The Gnome (talk) 17:48, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 03:56, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 03:56, 12 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep political parties are notable, and lack of citations is not a reason for deletion. Constantine  ✍  08:08, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Notability of political parties does not override the Wikipedia rule on citations. Moreover, notability itself is demonstrated only by citing "third-party", "reliable sources". The current entry is simply the translation of a Greek Wikipedia entry that does not include any citations either - see this criterion for speedy deletion. -The Gnome (talk) 04:49, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Lack of citations is a reason for deleting when the notability is self-evident. Political parties that have existed for 40+ years and contested multiple elections, even if they are on the ideological fringe, are inherently notable. Constantine  ✍  09:09, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
 * (You probably meant "not self-evident.") But, pray, how are we supposed to assess notability in the English Wikipedia without a single, English-language reference?? The whole text could be a heap of original work. Notability in one language does not necessarily translate to notability in another language. If it were like this, we'd have all entries present in all languages! I'd suggest that editors interested in keeping this article up find some reliable citations for it. Currently, there are none whatsoever. -The Gnome (talk) 19:04, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
 * OK, first, notability is totally unrelated with WP:OR. This AfD is based on the lack of citations, and that in itself is no reason for deletion. The criteria for deletion #6 and #7, which concern sourcing, have nothing to do with the case here, unless there were "thorough attempts to find reliable sources to verify them" on your part before bringing the article to AfD, of which I see no evidence. Criterion #8, which concerns notability, is not on the AfD rationale in the first place, and even if it were, a political party is not judged differently if its main language is Greek or English, at least if Wikipedia is meant to represent the sum of human knowledge, at least, and not the sum of knowledge of the English-speaking world. A party that has had a steady presence over several decades is notable, period, or we understand completely different things under "notability". Unless you have reason to suspect that the article subject or its content is a hoax, which it obviously isn't, there is no reason for deletion. Constantine  ✍  13:14, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
 * We have an entry here constructed without a single citation for outside sources. How, then, are we to establish, first of all, notability? It could all be a heap of original research. In general elections in Greece, a great number of extremely small parties "have had a steady presence" over several decades. Do they all deserve a separate Wikipedia entry? (Note that we're almost a week into this proposal, and no one has managed to come up with references and sources for the article; not even Greek language sources.)-The Gnome (talk) 09:11, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
 * "no one has managed to come up with references", well, that was because I for one was not looking. After I started looking, I found several immediately, and user Soman has also found material, which suggests that you did not look yourself. I repeat, the premise of the AfD is wrong. The usual practice I have encountered in all the years I've been here is that no references does not equal immediate deletion, except if there is reason to suspect a hoax or a completely non-notable subject. At the very least a cursory search would have revealed that the subject has a presence on the web way beyond what a normal hoax or two-person joke party has. From then on, tagging it with "references lacking" would have been appropriate, requesting help at the WP:GREECE talk page would have been a good move, googling the subject yourself and asking for help for translation from Greek would have been even better, but AfD-ing it to essentially force other people to add references is not OK. Constantine  ✍  14:07, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
 * It has been tagged with a "references lacking" notice - since 2012. How many years exactly are we supposed to wait and leave it as it is before we do what the "reference lacking" notice says? ("Unsourced material may be challenged and removed"). -The Gnome (talk) 23:01, 19 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep, lack of citations is not a valid reason for deletion. Plenty online material is available if someone is interested to expand it. --Soman (talk) 16:19, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
 * On the contrary, lack of citations is expressly a "valid reason" for deleting an article, This particular article has been tagged for lack of citations since 2012. Enough already. -The Gnome (talk) 04:49, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
 * "This essay contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors...", read the fine print. --Soman (talk) 10:43, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry but what are you referring to? Are you commenting on the relevant Wikipedia rule? -The Gnome (talk) 20:04, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Essay, not rule. --Soman (talk) 23:27, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Τhe Wikipedia rules for deleting an article are specified here. Please check out, in particular, reasons #6, 7 & 8. Additionally, you may want to compare the total lack of references in this article to the thorough referencing in the entry of an equally small, leftist political party, the Partito della Rifondazione Comunista. Cheers. -The Gnome (talk) 12:18, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Neither 6, 7 and 8 applies here. It is not impossible to source material for the article, running a quick google shows that. --Soman (talk) 13:03, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
 * If it is "not impossible" then, by all means, go ahead and do it! Before proposing that the article be deleted, I tried but found next to nothing online. If the situation is rectified, I have no problem whatsoever with the article staying up. Like I said, compare this entry with the entry for another, equally small, far-left party and you'll see what's proper sourcing. -The Gnome (talk) 13:09, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
 * For the record: relevant text of the pertinent articles
 * 6. Articles that cannot possibly be attributed to reliable sources
 * 7. Articles for which thorough attempts to find reliable sources to verify them have failed
 * 8. Articles whose subjects fail to meet the relevant notability guideline -The Gnome (talk) 13:14, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:08, 13 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete no grounds of notability established in this discussion or the article--Mevagiss (talk) 08:42, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment, here a photo from the party founding in 1976, http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_MHosfyiQ9u4/TOaAFHarWmI/AAAAAAAARJ4/NUCvZwzdiEw/s1600/%25CE%25921.jpg, clearly not a microparty. --Soman (talk) 10:26, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
 * In order to refute allegations for the entry's subject being a "microparty" (allegations which have not been made through the proposal for deletion), one would need to invoke electoral returns. This is an entry about a political party, not a political movement. -The Gnome (talk) 09:15, 17 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment Editor Soman has created a significant number of Wikipedia entries dedicated to small political organisations, as can be attested from his User Page. I personally consider the work to be highly commendable. Perhaps, Soman would be interested in improving the article in question. I certainly have been unable to do so. -The Gnome (talk) 09:24, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep. It's a longstanding political party that has contested elections, and has a newspaper, and is a bona fide organization.  Contrast to Transhumanist Party, also at AFD, which has no organization. -- do  ncr  am  18:49, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 13:15, 19 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep Profiled in this source, which could be used in the article quite extensively (I would do it myself but I'm in a hurry and will do it later if nobody else has). Keresaspa (talk) 15:53, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment, sorry, but Alexander mentions KKE/ML, not KKE(m-l). --Soman (talk) 18:18, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Ah. Strike my vote then. Keresaspa (talk) 03:21, 20 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep The current state of the entry does not warrant its deletion, as far as having adequate references is concerned. Therefore, I'm obliged to withdraw my nomination for deletion. -The Gnome (talk) 18:58, 20 November 2014 (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.