Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Communist Workers Organisation (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 keep. General consensus is that the topic is notable. A merge "into one better and larger article" can be discussed outside of AFD Eddie891 Talk Work 22:05, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Communist Workers Organisation (Marxist–Leninist)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

No sources or references of any kind have been used or cited in these articles for over 12 years, they fail to reach Wikipedia's criteria for notability, and lead to confusion due to other organisations with the same name having their own articles on Wikipedia. Seems more appropriate for these minor organisations to have a sentence or two on the pages for their respective country's socialist movements (if sources can be found for this) rather than entire articles of their own.

I am also nominating the following related pages for the reasons listed above:
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. North America1000 16:25, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. North America1000 16:25, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. North America1000 16:26, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. North America1000 16:26, 28 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep - the deletion rationale contradicts itself. If article are deleted, the risk of confusion between different organizations with same/similar names increase. The Maoist movement played an important role in the 1970s counterculture youth movements, but suffers from having collapsed pre-world wide web. As per KAO(ml) is hardly impossible to source. See for example https://www.hdc.vu.nl/nl/Images/Mao_in_de_Polder_tcm215-177879.pdf, which details that KAO(ml) played a prominent role in the 1979 Rotterdam dock strike, https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/232479451.pdf outlines that the group had 50 members by 1981 (by this point the Maoist movement had declined). Notably the party was significant enough for Dutch intelligence to infiltrate... --Soman (talk) 19:54, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment in favour of deletion: Not contradictory at all - I don't see how mentioning these minor and long defunct organisations "on the pages for their respective country's socialist movements" would increase confusion? Reducing the amount of poorly written pages about small Maoist and Stalinist groups would only help reduce confusion. Since no one bothered to include any sources on these pages for a dozen years or so, it is pretty clear that these might have been written by a former member using own knowledge - which is problematic for a number of reasons in Wikipedia. The other CWO, in the UK, is at least a functioning organisation with significance as one of the few functioning left communist groups in Europe, whereby finding English-language sources about it is not as much of an issue. The same cannot be said for all these Marxist-Leninist parties and groups all around the world, which are a dime a dozen. --Samotny Wędrowiec (talk) 16:13, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I'd said that KAOml was like more relevant than CWO... so by your argument we should delete CWO(UK), to avoid confusion with KAOml? --Soman (talk) 20:36, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Strawman and untrue. --Samotny Wędrowiec (talk) 13:55, 30 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep - The "Kommunistische Arbeiders Organisatie" was notable enough to be mentioned in a couple of pages in a security report from "BINNENLANDSE VEILIGHEIDSDIENST" (I take this to be a department of "Internal Security" or something of that nature), and if they were seen notable enough for such a report then, they would most likely still live up to the norms for notability here on Wikipedia. Yes both this article and the Dutch article on the same matter fails to provide any sources, but a quick search on the internet seem to reveal, that the relevant sources is kept in one or more archieves in The Netherlands - though I'm not the one going to this country in the near future to have a closer look at these sources. :-) Oleryhlolsson (talk) 09:08, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment - And the article about "Kommunistische Arbeidersorganisatie" (1972-1978) that was the precursor of "Kommunistische Arbeiders Organisatie" (1978-1990) delivers an important story as one of the many strange movements on the (radical) left in the political landscape of the 1970s. Oleryhlolsson (talk) 10:09, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment: If someone who is impartial and fluent in Dutch could have a look at these sources to confirm whether this is in fact notable enough, then I'd agree that maybe the articles could be merged instead or something. As of right now, no convincing argument has been made as to why these completely unsourced and unprofessional articles shouldn't be converted into a section at a page like Socialism in the Netherlands. Although that article also appears completely devoid of sources, which might reveal a more worrying and larger agenda here? --Samotny Wędrowiec (talk) 13:55, 30 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Alternative to deletion: In all honesty, all three of these organisations are probably about as notable as each other, being relatively small groups that were all formed in the early to mid '70s. The only way that CWO could be seen as more notable than the Dutch groups is due to the fact that it has survived up to this day and is a part of the ICT, which according to their website seems to have sections in like 6 different countries and contacts in many others. It would be a shame to see historical information of these Dutch groups disappear from Wikipedia, that is why I am for incorporating info about them elsewhere. An alternative that both of you might agree with is merging the two articles together and having an intro section about the origins of one organisation as the other, much like the ICT section in the CWO (UK) article for example. For another instance, look at National Radical Camp - it's an article about not only a much older group than any of these, but not only one yet three different organisations with the same name and historical roots. Would it not make sense to combine Communist Workers Organisation (Marxist–Leninist) and Communist Workers Organisation (Netherlands) into one better and larger article?


 * One thing is for sure, these articles cannot remain on Wikipedia in their current shape any longer. It has been 12 years. Much better quality new pages are being rejected every day for way less serious issues. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and certain standards must be met; using sources to back up statements is the absolute minimum. No one has bothered to do this for a dozen years in either of these articles. Either they are reworked with extensive citations and sources, preferably merged into one article as is the case with most other small organisations like this on Wikipedia, or they will be deleted because they fail to meet the most basic of standards for this website. --Samotny Wędrowiec (talk) 14:41, 30 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment - I've now added literature for the article about Communist Workers Organisation (Marxist–Leninist). It was evident from "De Rode Jehova's" by Gerrit Voerman that the book Nederlands Kommunisme. Gebundelde opstellen from 1982 might be the most important book on the subject. Apart from this, we can now identify a number of sources that mentions "Kommunistische Arbeidersorganisatie". At least three reports from BVD (Binnenlandse Veiligheidsdienst (1949-2002)): BINNENLANDSE VEILIGHEIDSDIENST - PANORAMA - periode 1 oktober 1978 - 1 april 1979, KWARTAALOVERZICHT - Binnenlandse Veiligheidsdienst - Ie KWARTAAL 1979 & BINNENLANDSE VEILIGHEIDSDIENST. PANORAMA. periode 1 april - 1 oktober 1984 with the Ie KWARTAAL 1979 giving the most detailed account. Furthermore there are the Mao in de polder - Een historisch-sociologische benadering van het Nederlandse maoïsme 1964-1978, and then there are also a number of news(paper) articles about KAO. A little about the political 'climate' of these days in BN DeStem, 11-08-17 - Nico Schapendonk: "Een leven van actie, solidariteit en af en toe een confrontatie met bevoegd gezag", and further articles: Provinciale Zeeuwse Courant (PZC), 28 juli 1976: "Bezwaar tegen villa in Rotterdam" (p. 3) & Het Vrije volk'', 3 december 1986: "Toch kindern van Piramide naar Blijvliet" (p. 2. In the archieves there are also material to be found.
 * Archief Kommunistische Eenheidsbeweging Nederland (marxistisch-leninistisch) in Amsterdam has various material on KAO/KAO(ml):
 * OVERIGE STUKKEN EN DOCUMENTATIE
 * 95 Enkele pamfletten, een brochure over Oost-Timor en exemplaren van het ledenblad van de KAO (ml). 1973, 1980, z.d. 1 map
 * KAOml
 * 163-164 Stukken van de Kommunistiese Arbeidersorganisatie-ml afdeling Breda en de Kommunistiese Kring Breda-ml. 1973-1982. 2 mappen
 * 165 Ledenbladen van de KAOml. 1973-1982. 1 pak
 * Het Staatsarchief has a page with "Pamfletten wonen en kraken 1978 - 1979 - Amsterdamse pamflettenkatalogus, and somewhere in this loooong list should Kommunistische Arbeidersorganisatie also be mentioned.
 * So before we do anything else, my advise would be to use the sources at hand to improve the article(s) and to add relevant source references to the text. Oleryhlolsson (talk) 22:50, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Good work, this will definitely be useful for improving this article. --Samotny Wędrowiec (talk) 20:17, 31 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment - Initially I only made searches for "Kommunistische Arbeidersorganisatie" & "Kommunistische Arbeiders Organisatie" not for neither Kommunisten Kring Rijnmond nor Kommunistische Organisatie Rotterdam en Omstreken, so my search wasn't 'complete' in any sense. If you wan't to learn more about original material from these and other organisations you can go to International Institute of Social History / Internationaal Instituut voor Sociale Geschiedenis and enter the name of the organisation you want to learn more about in their Search Field then you will end up with lists of various original material from these organisations. Oleryhlolsson (talk) 17:53, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep, as this is of historical significance.--Astral Leap (talk) 07:31, 2 September 2020 (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.