Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Communists for Kerry


 * 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 delete. With the exception of a few non-policy-based comments from editors with limited history, unanimous agreement to delete, in this well-attended debate. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:12, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Communists for Kerry

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails to establish notability -- even more so than the recently-deleted related article The People's Cube; see Articles for deletion/The People's Cube. -- The Anome (talk) 23:26, 9 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. KAP03Talk &bull;&#32;Contributions 23:33, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -  C HAMPION  (talk) (contributions) (logs) 00:25, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. -  C HAMPION  (talk) (contributions) (logs) 00:25, 10 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete no significant coverage in RS, fails WP:ORG. -  C HAMPION  (talk) (contributions) (logs) 00:27, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete Yet another example of how low the notability threshold used to be. Exemplo347 (talk) 00:37, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete Lacks notability, hence article is unsourced. TFD (talk) 03:04, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment The purges will continue until Thoughtcrime is eradicated. Ruthfulbarbarity (talk) 05:20, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Feel free to add sources to the article if you believe sources exist. This kind of spurious comment helps no-one. These discussions are based on Wikipedia's policies, not some sort of Communist-era "purge" mentality. Find substantial coverage in reliable, independent sources, add references to them to the article, and the article will survive this Deletion discussion. If you care enough about this article to call it's deletion a "purge" then surely you won't mind putting in the work. I look forward to reading the article when you're done. Exemplo347 (talk) 09:07, 10 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete - classic agitprop, but non-notable and un-funny satire. Thousands of American service members and millions of Iraqis were killed due to snarky crap like this allowing the re-election of George W. Bush and Dick Cheney, although this effort didn't even get lasting media coverage. Bearian (talk) 16:01, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I find it appalling that you let your personal political preferences cloud your judgement on this matter. As a long time Wiki reader and donor I see this once great vault of knowledge slide into political activism, for example read this. I must admit the page needs editing but this discussion seems to have less to do with quality standards and more with members' political agendas. Powderday (talk) 13:38, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
 * It's not about politics, it's about Wikipedia policy. If you, or anyone else, can find multiple independent reliable sources that establish notability for this article's subject, per WP:NOTABILITY, it can be kept. If not, not. So far, no-one seems to have been able to do so. -- The Anome (talk) 17:53, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
 * The post I was responding too was clearly politically motivated, I'm sure you'll agree? The sources should be updated, on that you are right. Powderday (talk) 09:28, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Bearian, although CommunistsForKerry did not receive sustained media coverage as it disbanded after the 2004 election, and thus in some metaphorical sense fails WP:BLP1E, I would suggest that Atbashian-the-biography could pass WP:BLP1E as well as WP:GNG for his agitprop artistry -- in addition to CommunistsForKerry, he was also the main person behind ThePeople'sCube, and has some law-enforcement-related news coverage related to protesting Hamas. See my specific suggestion below.  47.222.203.135 (talk) 18:08, 14 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Rename to Oleg Atbashian, leaving a redirect from Communists for Kerry to the newly-created Oleg Atbashian, and merge the sources from The People's Cube into Oleg Atbashian (admins can recover them from the recent AfD which sparked this current AfD as well as from or Draft:People's Cube or CSD'd draft by Karunamon).  The existing Communists for Kerry article already mentions that most of the group behind CfK immediately migrated to TPC website -- they are not the same topic, but they are closely linked, and both are projects founded and/or led by Atbashian.  He has also been in the news more recently, for freedom of speech-related altercations with the campus police at George Mason University.  I would remind all and sundry that WP:BLP applies to all pages, and that Special:Contributions/Dr.Oleg.Atbashian. was a bluelink in 2014 (though possibly WP:DBTF applies), so if you disagree with me that sufficient sources exist to satisfy WP:GOLDENRULE with respect to Atbashian and his activities, please remember to be clear that yours is a policy-motivated stance.  Rather than dump refs here, I will put them into Draft:Oleg Atbashian.  47.222.203.135 (talk) 18:08, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much for your inpot. The merge is a good idea. I have created a new draft for the "the people's cube' wiki entry, and thought about merging it with Atbashian's own entry, but I'm afraid the result will be too large an article. Can you comment on this? The draft is at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:People%27s_Cube or click here. The draft is currently awaiting final review.Powderday (talk) 09:29, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Replied elsewhere, but just for the record WP:SIZERULE says that we will have no trouble, and if we do someday, WP:SPINOFF is the solution. 47.222.203.135 (talk) 21:31, 15 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment For every article, Wikipedia has a page that lists all Wiki-pages referencing that article. For CFK, that page has 56 incoming links. Wikipedia articles that link to Communists for Kerry includes 32 legitimate Wikipedia articles referencing Communists For Kerry.  Shouldn't the existence of 32 legitimate Wikipedia articles referencing Communists For Kerry serve as proof of notability by default?  Besides, deleting the CFK page will lead to all those other Wiki articles to have invalid links, hurting Wikipedia's own reliability.  Rewriting history is tricky that way.  I would understand if Wikipedia was printed on paper and had a space limit. Deleting electronic articles has no such justification  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Atbashian (talk • contribs) 18:41, 14 January 2017 (UTC)  — Atbashian (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Yes, there is such a thing as WP:NOTPAPER. No, the number of wikilinks to the topic is not crucial, that just means cleanup work (but it is easy work because the what-links-here tool gives the todo-list).  The key here is WP:GOLDENRULE aka WP:GNG, which your sources provided below will help answer, thank you.  Remember to be WP:NICE to your fellow wikipedians, and to WP:AGF, we are here to help if we can, so please remain calm and friendly.  47.222.203.135 (talk) 07:34, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Newspapers, magazines
 * Delete  Firstly, the number of links an article is not a valid argument to prevent the deletion of an article. See WP:POPULARPAGE and WP:ARBITRARY. Secondly there is no "significant coverage" of the subject from reliable sources that are independent from the subject meaning it does not meet WP:GNG. -KAP03(Talk &bull;&#32;Contributions/Your Page) 20:27, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete per all the reasons given above. Safiel (talk) 22:34, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep - Notability proven without a shadow of a doubt by extensive news coverage by leading mainstream publications like the BBC, The Washington Post, The Atlantic, The Scotsman, New York Post, MTV, Fox News, NY Newsday, etc.  Below are some links to the 2004 media coverage of the Communists for Kerry group, activities, and interviews I was able to recover from the archived pages.  The coverage on left-wing blogs is also extensive (mostly relating to the Fox News controversy), as well as an entertaining thread of comments on John Kerry's own blog. I'm also including a few expired links at the bottom, for historical purposes. The sheer volume and the prominent names should speak for themselves. I only wish I had compiled this list sooner.  :: — Atbashian (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 18:07, January 14, 2017 (UTC).
 * Washington Post - http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A45279-2004Aug29.html
 * BBC - http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3610896.stm
 * Fox News - http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,134268,00.html
 * New Republic - http://web.archive.org/web/20050212031017/http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?pt=tjsWvZIeCFWyba7Vsn1Huh%3D%3D
 * MTV - http://web.archive.org/web/20041209102506/http://www.mtv.com/chooseorlose/headlines/news.jhtml?id=1490667
 * The Atlantic - http://web.archive.org/web/20050309084918/http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/prem/200408u/cd2004-08-31
 * The Scotsman - http://www.scotsman.com/news/world/100-000-march-in-manhattan-against-bush-1-551163
 * Washington Monthly - http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2004_10/004823.php
 * RTN - New York Russian language television - a one-hour interview with the group - the video itself exists on a VHS tape, this is a link to screenshots - http://web.archive.org/web/20050313210211/http://communistsforkerry.com/GPU/viewtopic.php?t=201
 * The Atlantic - http://web.archive.org/web/20050309084918/http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/prem/200408u/cd2004-08-31
 * The Scotsman - http://www.scotsman.com/news/world/100-000-march-in-manhattan-against-bush-1-551163
 * Washington Monthly - http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2004_10/004823.php
 * RTN - New York Russian language television - a one-hour interview with the group - the video itself exists on a VHS tape, this is a link to screenshots - http://web.archive.org/web/20050313210211/http://communistsforkerry.com/GPU/viewtopic.php?t=201

Deadlinks to Newspapers
 * New York Newsday - AM NY - http://www.nynewsday.com/media/acrobat/2004-10/11104636.pdf
 * New York Post - http://nypost.com/postopinion/opedcolumnists/27854.htm
 * Knoxville News Sentinel (USA today) - http://www.knoxnews.com/kns/politics/article/0,1406,KNS_356_3149379,00.html
 * Palm Beach Post - http://www.palmbeachpost.com/news/content/news/epaper/2004/08/30/w1a_BINO_0830.html

Blogs:
 * Daily Kos - http://www.dailykos.com/story/2004/10/2/161034/211
 * John Kerry blog - http://web.archive.org/web/20050221092342/http://blog.johnkerry.com/blog/archives/003051.html
 * Free Republic - http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1196054/posts
 * Newshounds - http://www.newshounds.us/2004/10/04/thats_no_excuse_jane_roh.php
 * http://web.archive.org/web/20090708234256/http://www.newshounds.us/2004/10/02/porn_stars_for_kerry_next.php
 * http://web.archive.org/web/20090708234426/http://www.newshounds.us/2004/10/02/tell_fox_the_news.php
 * http://www.americanpolitics.com/20041003punditpap.html
 * http://www.eschatonblog.com/2004/10/fox-news-snookered-again.html
 * http://www.atrios.blogspot.com/2004/10/fox-news-snookered-again.html
 * http://www.jimgilliam.com/2004/10/foxnewscom_is_totally_out_of_control.php
 * http://web.archive.org/web/20060521183623/http://disc.server.com/discussion.cgi?disc=179175;article=4613;title=Indypendent;pagemark=20
 * http://web.archive.org/web/20041216071031/http://www.btcnews.com/btcnews/archives/00000729.html
 * http://web.archive.org/web/20080918093719/http://homepage.mac.com/mkoldys/iblog/C168863457/E1106178607/index.html
 * http://web.archive.org/web/20050312163629/http://www.mydd.com/story/2004/10/2/171426/661
 * http://web.archive.org/web/20041028211356/http://www.gisleson.com/blog/index.php?id=495
 * http://web.archive.org/web/20061116174930/http://www.smithersmpls.com/2004/10/fox-news-continues-to-blow-any.html
 * http://web.archive.org/web/20130112214104/http://www.thismodernworld.com/weblog/mtarchives/week_2004_09_26.html#001775

Deadlinks to Blogs
 * http://www.haloscan.com/comments.php?user=atrios&comment=109674625370586683
 * http://www.apavlik0.tripod.com/sunsetblog/control.comment?a=add&entry_id=466974
 * Adjusted the indentation, and collapsed the list-of-URLs, for ease of readability when people visit the AfD thread. 47.222.203.135 (talk) 21:38, 15 January 2017 (UTC)


 * The sources for my proposed upmerge to Oleg Atbashian are somewhat more extensive than the just-CFK-specific reflist shown above, because Atbashian has been involved in CFK in 2004, the spinoff effort TPC since then, and a legal altercation in 2016 with GMU. Please see Draft_talk:Oleg Atbashian for a detailed ref-by-ref analysis.  47.222.203.135 (talk) 13:14, 16 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep- The Communists For Kerry group, CFK, is referred to in notable, independent publications and news outlets as listed above. The personal views of politically motivated editors must be set aside or WP is destined to sink into obscurity. As a user and donor I don't want to see that happen! Snit333 (talk) 04:44, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
 * "As a user and donor" - how is that relevant? Exemplo347 (talk) 09:31, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry Exemplo, I'm afraid you are taking this all too personally. By saying "as a user and a donor" Snit333 probalby wanted to show his attachment and fondness of Wikipedia. Your reply to this well meant comment is - in my opinion - unnecessary spiteful. Powderday (talk) 09:44, 15 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep - Let's keep wikipedia neutral, please, or it will los all credibility. The sources mentioned clearly show Kommunists for Kerry was notable at the time of the street protests against G.W.Bush. It's inherent to "elections" that - once the elections are over - the protest groups / PACS / volunteer / campaigns lose a big part of their relevance and notability. I do not see why this page should be deleted and the relevant "Billionaires for Bush" page, which is actually just the same type of group (but left wing) can stay on wikipedia. If - in 30 years from now - people want to learn something about the way political campaigns were organised and the street protests they encompassed, finding entries like the ones I mentioned above (or the -hopefully soon to be reinstated-  people's cube entry) will give relevant insights and information. Also, I think that sensitive political entries or discussions like the above should be seriously debated by senior editors to avoid activism by politically motivated wikipedians.Powderday (talk) 09:44, 15 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment I can't speak for other editors, but I can categorically say that my participation in Articles for Deletion discussions is in no way motivated by political views, "spitefulness" or bias. My !votes are based purely on Wikipedia's policies, nothing more, and if anyone believes otherwise then it's not my fault. If it seems like I've commented on a lot of articles that lean one way or another politically, then that too is not my fault - suggesting that any editor has a political motivation or bias when all they are doing is participating in one of Wikipedia's standard processes undermines whatever arguments people are trying to make. Let's keep these decisions strictly about policy and refrain from casting aspersions, direct or implied, about other editors.Exemplo347 (talk) 09:56, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
 * If that's the case, my apologies. But as you can see in someprevious comments there are some among us who have trouble with staying neutral. I'm very grateful for your pointing out the obvious faults in the references and structure of the previous draft, and I made an effort to change them myself today, I hope with good result.Powderday (talk) 10:40, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I hope your apology also extends to the post you made on the talk page of another editor about me. Yes, I did see it, I just chose not to rise to it. You may want to evaluate your own neutrality on this subject. Exemplo347 (talk) 10:41, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
 * My apology extends to every single form of injury, any of my comments ever inflicted upon you. And that is no melodrama: if you are indeed commenting on the TPC site and the CFK site out of concern for the quality of WP, then I find that commendable. I think it's amazing how much work is done by people like yourself. But the comment on the other user's talk page (i'm not sure which one?) referred not to you explicitely I presume? I just found it "strange" that the reviewer (not you) of my TPC draft kept ignoring my request for detailed comments on the new references and edits to the page, so I had no idea how to improve it. That's why I asked help other reviewers who "passed by" on the talk page.


 * Comment It has been proposed to merge Oleg Atbashian (as an author) with Communists for Kerry and the People's Cube. But I'm afraid the new "people's cube" draft will be too big to just add as a sub-page to this new merged entry. I have no experience with merging, is there someone with advice on this topic? Thank you very much for your input everyone, because of all the comments the new entry is already significantly improved!Powderday (talk) 13:09, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete. Not seeing the significant, in-depth, independent coverage. Neutralitytalk 02:00, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Neutrality, can you take a look at reorganized sources for my proposed BLP-rename? I am working to see whether there are additional WP:RS with depth, but at present I believe that distinct topic is coming close to passing WP:GOLDENRULE (depends on whether the listed barelinks have depth).  Also ping The Anome who originated the AfD, can you please comment on the sources thus far w.r.t. the rename-slash-upmerge-to-BLP-topic idea?  Some reasonable depth on Oleg and his CFK and TPC groups does exist (albeit relatively minimal in each instance) of detailed set of factoids published in newspapers and on television during 2004, 2006, 2012, 2016, including a bit of international coverage with less depth (but helps improve breadth-of-coverage methinks).  47.222.203.135 (talk) 10:52, 16 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Prithee WP:MERCY... since I believe the usual seven-day-WP:TIAD-thing is approaching, however, myself and another wikipedian or two ARE still working on verifying several barelinks e.g. The Atlantic for applicability/depth/etc... if the closing admin believes that work has a shot at success, either for retaining Communists for Kerry or perhaps renaming/merging it into Oleg Atbashian the group's leader, I would request relisting. I expect to be finished in the next three days, or four, with digging for sources.  47.222.203.135 (talk) 10:52, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
 * There's nothing stopping you from creating your draft anyway, even if this article DOES get deleted - so there's no reason to ask for this AfD to be delayed. Carry on with your draft. Exemplo347 (talk) 16:58, 16 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete - Non-notable parody eluding to a non-notable, (now defunct), group whose best hope was mere agitation, (unrealized).--John Cline (talk) 19:03, 16 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete for lack of sufficient sources. Flag me if anyone finds multiple WP:RS that focus on this topic in a substantive way, rather than the brief mentions I'm seeing.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:31, 16 January 2017 (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.