Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/English People's Liberation Army


 * 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. Eddie891 Talk Work 22:31, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

English People's Liberation Army

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Minor paramilitary organisation. Was up for speedy, but I'm not convinced it meets WP:CSD. Linking this terrorist organisation to a republican BLP looks a bit problematic, but without that there is very little left to say. —Kusma (t·c) 20:17, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. —Kusma (t·c) 20:17, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. —Kusma (t·c) 20:17, 27 March 2021 (UTC)


 * It gets an entry on page 497 of ISBN 9780582902558. As for the encyclopaedia cited as one of the sources here: That encyclopaedia's entry is about the Republican Party of England, on pages 76–77, but does connect it to this subject.  I even found .  I'm not sure that presenting these organizations as tiny encyclopaedia articles is the best approach.  Some kind of umbrella subject might be better.  But the sources cited, and other sources that can be found, do pan out.  Uncle G (talk) 21:20, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, I don't doubt the existence, but it does seem a minor footnote in UK domestic terrorism. I'm a bit confused that UK far-left lists it as "Marxist–Leninist", though, and there's no indication of that here. —Kusma (t·c) 21:41, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
 * That is possibly because the aforementioned encyclopaedia says "Maoist inspired". Uncle G (talk) 22:01, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete - although quite a few people have now looked for reliable sources, there's nothing substantial; while there is something accurate which can be said, it doesn't appear to reach notability. Ideally, this could be merged elsewhere, but I can't think of a suitable location. Warofdreams talk 17:37, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete My search is finding the same as others, fails WP:GNG. Jeepday (talk) 02:10, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete: not enough coverage to pass general notability guidelines. TheDreamBoat (talk) 04:30, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete Perhaps should have a mention in a wider article, but as a stand-alone article, I agree with the above votes that there is not enough notability here. doktorb wordsdeeds 08:13, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete. Per nom. -- Devoke water  05:52, 3 April 2021 (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.