Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fifth International


 * 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. A procedural error kept this AfD open for six months, but I don't see any evidence that the extraordinary time span caused any real problems. The biggest issue here is whether WP:CRYSTAL applies; makes a convincing argument why it doesn't.  Some argument could be made for calling this No Consensus, but I think both the weight of numbers and the strength of arguments are sufficient to justify calling this Consensus To Keep. -- RoySmith (talk) 21:47, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Fifth International

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I am not convinced that this article should exist. So far, such an International simply does not exist ; it is not even a coherent concept. We just have very different people (most notably Hugo Chavez) who said, in very different times, that it would be nice to have a Fifth International. As long as this International has not been actually and officially created, I don't think we should have a page, besides brief mentions in Hugo Chavez, History of socialism, History of communism, Bolivarian Revolution, Socialism of the 21st century and so on. In its present state, the article is just misleading, since it would lead some to believe that the "Fifth International" has been a defined and coherent concept, while the various people who have used the term "Fifth International" have nothing in common (unless one thinks there is an intimate political connection between Hugo Chavez in 2007 and Lyndon LaRouche in 1965 !). So far, this "Fifth International" is just wishful thinking : while it deserves to be mentioned here and there, wikipedia should not be used to give it substance. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 06:28, 16 January 2014 (UTC)


 * delete per above Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 08:06, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep The League for the Fifth International does exist, and there have been many proposals over the last 75 years. They all have to do with revolutionary socialism, most have to do with Trotskyism, and a broad article on the concept is appropriate, along with articles on the League and various other groups that identify with the concept. By the way, what Chavez had in common with LaRouche in 1965 was self identification as revolutionary socialists.  Cullen 328  Let's discuss it  16:50, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, the League for the Fifth International does exist indeed, but I don't think mere proposals made by very different people, for very different reasons, make the Fifth International a reality (or even a coherent concept). Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 17:05, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep The concept, as historical proposal or fictional reference, is worth an article (or maybe a merge or redirect). Chuunen Baka (talk  • contribs) 16:57, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep Like Cullen said, this is one proposal for the Fifth International among the others. Hugo Chavez indeed has called for it, and many parties of the socialist current have been invited to it. On top of that, it has been taken seriously by some of the major political players in the European field, like The Left, Germany. As we know, The Left entails many different socialist factions, some of which have even been subject to investigation of Verfassungsschutz for their suspected radical activities. Therefore, I absolutely think that the Fifth International is an important phenomenon amidst the socialist field of today. Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 20:15, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep the idea of a "fifth" international has been around for decades. Various groups taking that name or using the concept have popped up from time to time.--Bellerophon5685 (talk) 22:21, 22 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Relisting comment: AfD wasn't properly formatted or listed. Now listed on today's log for a better hearing and a chance of closure after nearly six months.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Finngall  talk  05:52, 1 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:53, 1 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete - Unlike the International, Second International, Third International, Two-and-a-Half International, and Fourth International, there is no such thing as the 5th International. Hugo Chavez apparently said that it might be time to start one. Somebody made a swell logo. That's all there is to this: crystal ball speculation. Fails GNG. Carrite (talk) 16:30, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete and replace with disambiguation page: It's a patent case of WP:CRYSTAL. It's also a case of mistakenly assuming that all uses of a phrase refer to the same topic, then trying to make an article out of novel synthesis of all that, a WP:NOR violation, as well as a transgression of our principle that articles cover only one discrete topic and its subtopics. The only thing I would put in its place is a disambiguation page with entries like:

Any sources cited should be worked into the pages to which these entries would link. Any with no pages yet but for which we have a citation can either be used to create the pages in question if there's enough there, or at least noted for later use, on the talk page. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  23:42, 7 July 2014 (UTC) PS: This is distinguishable from, e.g., Second Constitutional Convention of the United States, because the "Fifth International" is a different entity created/convened through a different process with different role-players, in different places, toward different ends, in every formulation, while the 2CC is the same idea, to take the same form, in the same place, with the same roles (the legislators then in office), and under the same rules, the only significant difference between the proposals being what they hope the constitution-redrafting process will produce, and based on what values. It's like the difference between trying to have an article about a science fiction TV series that might appear next season on BBC 1, but about which we don't know anything other than general genre, vs. an article on various scripts and drafts and pilots and whatever for an upcoming TV series the basic plot of which is known already, and where only details regarding the differences between the treatments vary. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  23:46, 7 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep: This article falls within the Guidelines of WP:CRYSTAL as acceptable. From WP:CRYSTAL, "Wikipedia is not a collection of unverifiable speculation. All articles about anticipated events must be verifiable, and the subject matter must be of sufficiently wide interest that it would merit an article if the event had already occurred. It is appropriate to report discussion and arguments about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur, if discussion is properly referenced." The history of the prior Internationals suggest it is merely a matter of time until the Fifth occurs. The article is referenced, and is reporting discussion and arguments about the prospects for its success. I think that it is quite clear that Fifth International is a topic that is specifically allowed under WP:CRYSTAL's policy. Gzuufy (talk) 18:57, 8 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep but agree with many of the problematic issues with the article raised above. I think the lede paragraph should state quite clearly that it is an amorphous hypothetical concept, used in different ways and times by different people, meaning different things, as well as trying to circumscribe the commonalities (eg, pro-workers, socialist, international movement). Agree with that it is allowable per WP:CRYSTAL, in that while the 5th Intl may not exist as an actual organization, it exists as a concept of one, and the concept as such is real and has a meaning. Another problem touched on above is that there could be POV issues, in the sense that merely having an article on an organization which does not exist, can have an advocacy-effect, in the sense that Wikipedia may be seen as advocating for the creation of this organization merely by having an article on it. So care must be used in the article, but I do not see that as grounds for deletion.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 14:52, 10 July 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.