Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/International Bolshevik Tendency


 * 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. Disregarding a bunch of SPA and WP:ILIKEIT !votes as usual, we are left with a rough consensus to delete. T. Canens (talk) 06:06, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

International Bolshevik Tendency
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

No evidence of notability, defined as significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Polemics with other far-left groups should not count. Superheroes Fighting (talk) 23:36, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete About as notable as a local ham radio club. Shii (tock) 03:57, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep- I just looked this up on wikipedia because I wanted to know about it, was really glad there was a wikepedia article on it. I'm not a member of or connected to this group in any way. I will say though, that this article does need to be rewritten. I think there is a significant difference between a small political party and a ham radio club. Notenderwiggin (talk) 17:06, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep! I have had this article on my watch list for a long time. I am very interested in the Marxist movement and especially the Trotskyist movement and make use of Wikipedia to keep up on eventsat I may not otherwise know about. I have no connection whatsoever with the organization which this article is about and that makes it especially likely that I might miss significant events in its continuing evolution. I agree that the difference between an international revolutionary movement, no matter how small, and a local ham radio club is profound. Dolaro (talk) 18:24, 13 February 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dolaro (talk • contribs) 18:14, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. Although the IBT, with which I have no connection, is a tiny organisation it does have some importance. If only7 because of its interaction with other larger groups butalso due to its role in the more or less defunct Socialist Labour Party. I also note that Ham radio clubs do not function at an international level and make no claims for their ideas. There is a massive difference between a hobby and revolutionary politics however impotent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.172.178.18 (talk • contribs)
 * Keep. Encyclopedias are for information. This is an article that provides information on a subject that some number of people consider of interest. The sources, if one cares to check them, are indeed reliable, unless Superheroes Fighting happens to have any that point to the contrary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.91.127.19 (talk) 12:56, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * None of the above comments address the fact that this organization does not appear to be notable. Is there a special exception that allows non-notable political organizations to have articles? The only source used is this organization's own website and publications, so the article is essentially nothing but a collection of things that this organization claims about itself. Why should it be considered reliable? Superheroes Fighting (talk) 19:28, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Strong keep. I was just looking up something about the External Tendency of the SL and was glad to find some information on it here. The ET is mentioned in an independenct reliable source, Robert Alexanders International Trotskyism--Dudeman5685 (talk) 20:27, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Very well, I withdraw my nomination. Superheroes Fighting (talk) 07:04, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * On second thoughts, striking withdrawal of nomination and shifting my position back to delete. I should add that in addition to the notability issue, this article appears to be a magnet for BLP problems. Superheroes Fighting (talk) 21:32, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep This is a small organisation but it is not completely insignificant. PatGallacher (talk) 10:14, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment"it is not completely insignificant" is not a Keep argument which satisfies WP:N or WP:ORG, which set a much higher bar. Edison (talk) 05:23, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
 * This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:13, 8 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete This article is referenced only to its own website and its own magazine "1917'", along with one book which merely makes a passing reference to a quotation from the "Fourth International" on the cover of that magazine . Clearly fails WP:ORG, the applicable notability guideline. So far the Keep arguments have been on the line of "I like it," or  "It is significant (without citing multiple reliable and independent sources without significant coverage)," or "It is useful (I looked up something in it)." These are of little benefit to the goal of keeping the article. Any political (or religious) movement can disintegrate into smaller and smaller fractions, each of which believes it is of incredible importance, but which have not been noted by independent and reliable sources beyond perhaps passing reference, or a directory listing. Their own publications cannot establish notability. Edison (talk) 16:30, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete Secondary sources are not provided which establish the notability of this group. Another problem is that without them the reader has no way to judge the importance of the group, beyond what they say about themselves. Steve Dufour (talk) 16:33, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - I favor the lowest of all possible barriers for the inclusion of political parties and their youth sections, regardless of ideology. This is the sort of material which encyclopedias should contain. Dollars to donuts that this group has merited substantive third party coverage in the annual series published by the Hoover Institution, Yearbook on International Communist Affairs, fat volumes published each year from 1966 to 1991. Carrite (talk) 17:30, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment That argument smacks of WP:ILIKEIT. To change the notability guidelines, you need to go to WP:N and WP:ORG and gut them so that articles you like do not have to have multiple reliable and independent sources with significant coverage. Edison (talk) 05:27, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment - I will throw up a construction banner for a bit and see if I can get this article into a better state. Carrite (talk) 17:36, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * If the IP editor who edited earlier on March 8 wishes to get in touch with me, I invite their input on my talk page, or off-wiki at MutantPop@aol.com. Carrite (talk) 19:30, 8 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment - First round of cleanup completed, please take a look at the article again, Deletion voters. Yes, microscopic Trotskyist sects (including this one) are the subject of serious scholarly inquiry, per the Alexander book. I repeat that I have no doubt whatsoever that additional material appears in the Hoover Institution annual volumes which I have mentioned above. I've got a couple of those kicking around in part of my library in another location but will probably need to visit a university library to dig out the last volumes of the series. Trust me when I say that this serious third-party coverage is probably there. This article can be further improved through the normal editing process and I expect that it will be so improved. Carrite (talk) 21:00, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment You have found and cited numerous times one encyclopedic work by Alexander, with the citations being about other groups than the subject of this article, which may have influenced it or may have been predecessors. Worldcat shows that book available in only one library (in Sweden), which is not the most convincing evidence that being discussed in it is a good proof of notability, but it is certainly a step in the right direction, to get away from exclusively citing the group's own publications. How much specific coverage does this encyclopedia of Trotskyism specifically have about the subject of this article? I do not find them in the online index to it under the name used for the article. The article only has the unreferenced claim that the "International Bolshevik Tendency" used to be called one of the groups covered in the Alexander book, leaving verifiability unsatisfied besides the questions as to notability.  Not swayed to change from Delete at this point. Edison (talk) 22:43, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Begging your pardon, Alexander's book is published by Duke University Press. Here's a link for the first 182 libraries holding the book from WorldCat, which doesn't count the Danish National Library, for some reason. This is a readily available scholarly work — not that "readily available" necessarily matters in terms of usability as a Wikipedia source. Carrite (talk) 22:56, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Begging your pardon, but Worldcat only linked to the one library when I checked it. That aside, do you agree that the book you cited multiple times makes never even mentions this Trot splinter group even a single time? Edison (talk) 05:15, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment WorldCat often has multiple entries for a single title, caused by (I'm guessing) how different libraries create their entries. In other words, if one institution has a typo or uses a variant form of the publisher in its index for a book, that generates a separate entry in WorldCat. Misreading information from WorldCat is very easy to do, let's not beat each other up over it. -- llywrch (talk) 15:42, 15 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep, I agree with PatGallacher, the group (which had sections in various different countries) is large enough to warrant an article. --Soman (talk) 01:01, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment If you take a look at WP:ORG you will find that claiming "the group is large enough" does not satisfy in any way the relevant notability guideline. In fact, no independent and reliable source cited in the article or in this AFD makes a statement about the "size" of the group, however irrelevant that fact would be. Aside: The article does not explain why they chose a silly title like something from a Monty Python skit about a fringe political group. Edison (talk) 05:30, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:11, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:11, 9 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep The Libertarian magazine Reason ran an article which described the IBT in 2003: A Bolshie Born Every Minute.(Defrauding the left). Cullen328 (talk) 23:53, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
 * That (very brief) article is not about the IBT, does not describe it, and mentions it only incidentally. How is it a reason to keep the article? Superheroes Fighting (talk) 00:31, 10 March 2011 (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.