Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Communist Party of Nepal (Marxist) (2006)


 * 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. There is no consensus to delete this text. Whether this is ultimately kept as a standalone or merged doesn't require continuation of this AfD. Star  Mississippi  03:03, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Communist Party of Nepal (Marxist) (2006)

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

Non-notable communist party of Nepal. Note there are many communist parties of Nepal, with many sharing a very similar name to this one, including Communist Party of Nepal (Unified Marxist-Leninist) (a major party) and the Communist Party of Nepal (Marxist–Leninist). There also other parties with the exact same name as this one, such as the Communist Party of Nepal (Marxist) (1991–2005), so be aware when looking for sources. Only post 2006 sources are likely acceptable here and those that specifically mention this party name. This party appeared to have had its best election results in the 2008 Nepalese Constituent Assembly election, where it received 0.2% of the vote. The party (or another incarnation of it) may have also run again in the 2017 Nepalese general election where it received 0.01% of the vote. It is a very minor party and while poor election results don't determine notability, they're still a good gauge of relative importance. I have also been unable to find any sources satisfying WP:SIRS on this particular entity and so I doubt it is notable under WP:NORG. Chess (talk) (please use&#32; on reply) 07:55, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Chess (talk) (please use&#32; on reply) 07:55, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Chess (talk) (please use&#32; on reply) 07:55, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. Chess (talk) (please use&#32; on reply) 07:55, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I have tried to verify from the linked source that the party merged into Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist Centre). If so, that might be an appropriate merge target; however the link seemed to fail verification (I added an tag). If we can verify that, I think merge makes sense, otherwise delete. snood1205 14:44, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Makes sense. I would support a redirect if verification can be done. Don't see the need for a merge though, there's not much content to be merged here. Chess (talk) (please use&#32; on reply) 22:16, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Oh yeah that makes sense. Redirect is preferable to merge here as there is no real content needed to save. Could be worth adding a line to the Maoist Centre article about the merger, but only if a WP:RS can be found. snood1205 20:30, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
 * The merger in 2012 would be with MLM Centre, not Maoist Centre, with MLM Centre merging into CPN(Marxist). This is detailed in the links below. --Soman (talk) 20:46, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you . I did not realize MLM Centre and Maoist Centre were separate entities. snood1205 23:12, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete: Non-notable political party, as per nom. --Whiteguru (talk) 21:05, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep - the communist movement in Nepal is very notable (with parliamentary majority of communist parties), the smaller communist groups play a particular role having recognized historical leaders and constantly forming new platforms and alliances. There is independent coverage dedicated to this group, denoting notability in Nepalese context - see for example articles like https://sansarnews.com/295406/ (full piece on split and reunification of the party), https://sahakarisanjal.com/2020-01-18-8240-sahakarinews.html (news on merger with the Kattel group), see also https://sahakarisanjal.com/2020-01-18-8251-sahakarinews.html, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zqDIEyOgVu8 (interview with party chairman), https://www.facebook.com/Ujyaalo/posts/535156983177773 (news about merger with the Malema Kendra group, link at main site no longer available), see also https://www.facebook.com/merojilladotcom/posts/421178564608480/ on same note, https://www.onlinekhabar.com/2016/11/506000 (news about death of party chair). Lately there are also mentions of a CPN Marxist (Pushpalal), I suppose a splinter group of the party. Both CPN(Marxist) and CPN Marxist (Pushpalal) have been part of same alliance (see https://www.dainiknepal.com/2020/11/475949.html and https://bisheshpati.com/main-story/79964/ ) --Soman (talk) 00:52, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Please see the WP:NORG criteria on trivial coverage. Coverage of "expansions, acquisitions, mergers,... " (emphasis mine) is considered WP:ROUTINE and does not satisfy the "significant" coverage requirement. Likewise for the deaths of former leaders, although the leader may be notable due to that coverage. Chess (talk) (please use&#32; on reply) 18:36, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Please note that WP:ROUTINE refers solely to the notability of events, and is not applicable here. The snippet on mergers in NORG refers to businesses. Coverage on political mergers is by no mean trivial. --Soman (talk) 20:44, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
 * NORG applies equally to most organizations, including political parties. Chess (talk) (please use&#32; on reply) 16:38, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep- (changed my vote) - new sources identified seem to substantiate this political party. Deathlibrarian (talk) 05:41, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
 * if there's no RSes why the keep vote? Chess (talk) (please use&#32; on reply) 05:01, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Apologies, Chess - that was a late night edit! meant to be a delete.I've changed it. Deathlibrarian (talk) 07:13, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep. There are essentially two parts to the original delete rationale, first a tidiness argument that objects to a confusing profusion of similarly named articles on small political parties and second an appeal to NORG. The first problem seems solvable with normal editing. With respect to NORG, if a party has fielded several candidates over a number of years for national office, it clears my personal notability bar. I reject the idea that we should apply NORG in a manner that is blind to the difference between political parties and companies. &mdash; Charles Stewart (talk) 15:18, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
 * It's called NORG, not NCORP. You can't just ignore policy because you don't like that it applies to certain kinds of organizations. Chess (talk) (please use&#32; on reply) 19:04, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
 * It is not policy but a guideline, and I do not ignore the guideline but reject inflexible applications of it. I see no value to these kinds of scrappy challenges to !votes at AfD. I am surprised to see an editor as experienced as yourself engaging in this way. &mdash; Charles Stewart (talk) 19:52, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Personally, I don't like that less profit oriented organizations in practice get treated better than for profit corporations. I'd like to see NORG evenly applied rather than used solely to delete for profit companies. I don't believe we should create "flexibility" here. It's not that I'm unaware that your vote is based on the commonly held idea that some types of entities should receive lesser scrutiny than others. It's that I don't believe that idea is based on what the community intended when we adopted WP:NORG as such. What you're proposing is to disapply WP:NORG because of an assumption that political parties should be treated differently than for profit corporations. I think that's systemic bias that privileges some organizations over others based on their goals. My "inflexibility" here is a conscious choice because I would like to see organizations treated the same regardless of they want to make money or abolish the concept of money. Chess (talk) (please use&#32; on reply) 21:17, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
 * There's more than reasonable grounds for differentiating notability standards between for-profit enterprises and those that are not; it's not as if the the tsunami of online global churnalism is primarily the result of the efforts of environmentalists, church organisations or Nepali communist parties, inter alia. It's not systemic bias to adopt mechanisms that recognise the effects of wealth and organisational power upon the generation of information; it's systemic bias to ignore or deny those effects. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 03:41, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Sure, but the community hasn't adopted any of those mechanisms and the policy is called WP:NORG, not just WP:NCORP. If you believe in this differentiation go ahead and propose it at WP:VPP but right now you're just proposing to have local consensus override global consensus. Chess (talk) (please use&#32; on reply) 04:11, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Consensus has already been established, that's why there is WP:NONPROFIT. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 05:12, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Note the second criterion, which says that notability is established if "The organization has received significant coverage in multiple reliable sources that are independent of the organization." Then note WP:ORGCRIT, which says an organization is "
 * notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject" You will notice this is the same exact wording with respect to the sourcing requirements, although NONPROFIT seems to add an additional criterion that organizations much meet which is that "the scope of their activities is national or international in scale."
 * The wordings of NONPROFIT at best apply a stricter criteria. Your claim that NONPROFIT establishes a lower bar is not based in reality. Chess (talk) (please use&#32; on reply) 05:47, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
 * We can agree to disagree (NB "additional considerations"), but I genuinely doubt there is community consensus to interpret any part of ORG as establishing that for-profit enterprises should be held to a lower threshold than non-profits. Regards and best for 2022, --Goldsztajn (talk) 08:43, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I would agree on the second point but that's the only interpretation I see other than holding them to the same standard. Chess (talk) (please use&#32; on reply) 17:01, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TonyBallioni (talk) 22:09, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep per the sources identified by, also the 21,000+ votes in the 2008 Constituent Assembly Election is not insignificant. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 05:12, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Relisting comment: Would like further input about the sources provided, there appears to be some conflicting views on them. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 13:19, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep but note that no source establishes WP:SIGCOV or WP:INDEPTH. The sources pointed by are just press releases. One of it even says this party has merged with another, which means this party does not exist anymore. However, the fact remains that the party had its candidates in the parliament in some point of history, so I vote it for a Keep.  PS: It is head-spinning work to identify the parent and children of communists parties in Nepal. nirmal (talk) 11:16, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
 * "Keep even though sources don't provide SIGCOV" is an interesting !vote. Chess (talk) (please use&#32; on reply) 07:19, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Keep. and discuss possible merger or redirect DGG ( talk ) 06:39, 16 January 2022 (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.