Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/International Confederation of Labor


 * 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 redirect to International Workers' Association. This is a tough one. There's a rough consensus that it is TOOSOON for this to have an article. On the other hand, there are strong arguments to PRESERVE the info. I am therefore redirecting this to International Workers' Association, as the ICL and its origins are mentioned there. That this is an article about a competing organization seems less relevant to me. Given the article's history, I will also protect the page, any admin can change the redirect or restore the article upon motivated request. Any content worth merging elsewhere will still be available from the history. Randykitty (talk) 12:28, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

International Confederation of Labor

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This has twice been turned into a redirect (by User:Czar and User:Elmidae), but then recreated by an anonymous user. It does not contain any independent, reliable sources. I've looked for such sources in attempt to improve the article, but came to the conclusion that there is just one: this article in a Spanish newspaper. That's clearly not enough to establish notability. I'm undecided on whether this should be deleted outright or turned into a redirect (either to International Workers' Association or to syndicalism, as both of those articles briefly describe the ICL). Carabinieri (talk) 14:43, 7 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Redirect to Contemporary anarchism, where it is covered in greatest depth. For independent notability, I think what I wrote on the talk page three months ago still holds: Echoing what was written a decade ago, I check back on this article every few months and find no reliable, secondary source with which to write an encyclopedia article. If such sources exist, they're inaccessible to me. (The other language Wikipedias don't have comparable sources either.) Even the Time article, which is a bit of a joke, only refers to the specific "Third International Congress of Anarchist Federations", not a persistent "International". In any event, the article appears overblown without secondary sourcing to back it up. czar  04:44, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but I think you're confusing two articles. This is about International Confederation of Labor, not International of Anarchist Federations.--Carabinieri (talk) 06:46, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Hm, yes indeed. Looks like that redirect (similar title) was undone at the same time this was nominated and I was pinged for both. Thanks czar  23:28, 8 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Redirect Merge to International Workers' Association, its most prominent related mention. re: redirect target, as a split from the IWA, I think ICL has a closer relation with that topic than with "syndicalism" as a whole.
 * As my edit summary went in March, this topic continues to lack significant coverage in multiple reliable, independent sources. (?) Right now, secondary source coverage doesn't do more than confirm its existence. Ping me if you find additional offline and non-English sources? (not watching, please )  czar  23:28, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Edit: Alarichall's added sources do not add enough information to justify a separate article, so their merger to the aforementioned target will suffice. czar  17:24, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:05, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:05, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:05, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:05, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South America-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:05, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:05, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:05, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:05, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   09:05, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
 * This has been existence for only a year so is probably WP:TOOSOON. However, the participation of the long established and highly notable IWW, as well as other notable organisations, should be covered somewhere on Wikipedia.  I think the previous attempts at redirecting to the IWA article were not constructive since that article does not cover the membership of the ICL in any detail. There is an element of WP:PRESERVE that comes into this. SpinningSpark 11:48, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
 * User:SpinningSpark, could you explain how WP:PRESERVE applies? That policy is about information that belongs in the encyclopedia, but is presented poorly. That's not the issue here.--Carabinieri (talk) 17:41, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Oh yes it is, that's exactly the issue. The information that the notable IWW and other notable organisations have joined a newly formed federation is certainly information the belongs on Wikpedia, regardless of whether the said federation is notable enough for its own article.  That is precisely what PRESERVE is all about, and precisely what that redirect failed to do. Spinning<b style="color:#4840A0">Spark</b> 18:05, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
 * ...and that guideline explicitly discusses merges and redirects. <b style="background:#FAFAD2;color:#C08000">Spinning</b><b style="color:#4840A0">Spark</b> 18:08, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
 * So what you're saying is that the articles on the member organizations should mention that they joined the ICL? If so, I certainly agree.--Carabinieri (talk) 18:16, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I think it should also be collected all in one place as well as scattered across multiple articles. <b style="background:#FAFAD2;color:#C08000">Spinning</b><b style="color:#4840A0">Spark</b> 20:14, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Where are the reliable sources that assert the noteworthiness of the subject or its collection of member organizations? czar  23:06, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
 * It doesn't need to meet GNG if the information is not on a dedicated page. I raised PRESERVE in connection with redirecting, not in connection with the substantive page. <b style="background:#FAFAD2;color:#C08000">Spinning</b><b style="color:#4840A0">Spark</b> 18:02, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
 * User:Spinningspark, maybe I'm just a little slow, but I'm still not exactly sure what outcome you're pushing for. Merging? If so, to what article?--Carabinieri (talk) 20:53, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm pushing for the Wikipedia policy of PRESERVEing encyclopaedic information. Whether that is done as a merge, and to which article, is a secondary issue, but International Workers' Association is a suitable target since that is where they have split from.  If the response to that is it would be WP:UNDUE weight in that article, then I am at keep.  We can't have good information falling between two stools like that.  This would be a classic case of applying WP:IAR in those circumstances. <b style="background:#FAFAD2;color:#C08000">Spinning</b><b style="color:#4840A0">Spark</b> 14:40, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

<div class="xfd_relist" style="border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 25px;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Comment in addition to the source found by Carabinieri, I've found a couple of other respectable mentions. They're not very substantial, so I don't think they'd save this article from being merged, but I hope that they can stay with the material as useful references if a merge happens. Alarichall (talk) 19:42, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, FoxyGrampa75 (talk) 16:50, 23 June 2019 (UTC) <div class="xfd_relist" style="border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 25px;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  MBisanz  talk 20:31, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete as WP:TOOSOON. Redirecting or merging to the IWA article makes no sense as they're rival organisations, and if the IWC doesn't become notable then it shouldn't have WP:UNDUE weight in the IWA article. If it gets coverage, recreate it, but until then, there's nothing worth saving. Triptothecottage (talk) 08:11, 2 July 2019 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.