Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/International Marxist 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   no consensus. Even after opinions that may have been canvassed or are poorly argued are discounted, the argument that the organization is not notable enough has failed to obtain consensus.  Sandstein  05:44, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

International Marxist Tendency

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

No independent sources verifying notability. Of 45 sources cited, 37 (82%) are from the organisation's In Defence of Marxism website (marxist.com) or from webpages that are affiliated with the organisation or its national sections meaning the article relies heavily on sources close to the subject, none of the remaining 8 sources independently verify the notablity of the IMT itself, entire sections of the article (Theory and Tactics) consist of original research. Most of the article is basically a linkfarm to websites belonging to the IMT's national affiliates. Downwoody (talk) 19:30, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete as nominator. Downwoody (talk) 19:28, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep - an international political umbrella organisation. I recently participated in an AfD about its American wing, for which no-one was able to identify any membership figures, leading members or activities (it was deleted and redirected to IMT). The IMT in general is different, being global and developed by well known theoreticians. Wikipedia needs to be politically inclusive. All that being said, I would definitely support a substantial clean-up and edit, as per the recently added clean-up tags. They seem to be blowing their opwn trumpet just a bit too hard! Sionk (talk) 19:49, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment Nothing here addresses the reasons given for deletion, in particular WP:ORG and WP:N. Deletion should be without prejudice so that if independent, verifiable sources establishing notability arise a new article can be created. Deletion has nothing to do with this group's political positions but with its notability. Downwoody (talk) 04:01, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * News coverage would have existed at the time of the IMT's creation in the early 1990's, pre-internet. However, whoever wrote (and developed) this article didn't do their homework (or make much attempt to be balanced) so, if consensus says it should be zapped, so be it. Sionk (talk) 11:11, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep but cleanup page. This article is in serious need of repair because most of the references are from one website.  However, the subject matter is mentioned in a number of independent sources,,, and thus Wikipedia's organizational notability guideline is met. NJ Wine (talk) 21:17, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment the first source you cite is from Vonk which is IMT's affiliate in Holland so it's not an independent source. The second and third source, both from the same book, do not establish notability - the IMT is not actually mentioned in the body of the book but only in passing in two endnotes. Endonte 10 cites an article from the IMT's In Defence of Marxism website but says nothing about the IMT itself and if one scrolls up to endnote 10's origin in the body of the text on page 7 there's no reference to the IMT whatsoever so this source does not establish notability. The second endnote, Endnote 243, is about Youth for International Socialism and mentions the IMT in passing and if one goes up to page 88 to see what is being endnoted it's actually about a Marx and Engels quote that is quoted in a Youth for International Socialism publication and again doesn't actually say anything about the IMT let alone establish its notability so the material you have provided does nothing to satisfy WP:ORG or WP:N. Simply being mentioned in passing in the footnotes of one book is not sufficient to provide independent verification of notability. Downwoody (talk) 04:01, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete per nominators reasons. Does not appear to satisfy WP:ORG or WP:N via significant coverage in multiple reliable and independent sources. Arguments of "We should cover such and such type of organization" or "It's an umbrella organization" or "It's global" smack of "I like it"  and are not compelling reasons to keep it. The links provided by NJWine include a PDF from a Dutch Marxist website, which does not appear to be a reliable source, and which is certainly not independent, since they say they are affiliated with the "International Marxist Tendency." and two bare mentions or passing references in published books, inadequate to show notability.  Edison (talk) 23:04, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete per Downwoody's research. The sources seem to be the Wikipedia equivalent of resume padding. Guy (Help!) 06:32, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep - I support the lowest of all possible bars to inclusion of articles for political parties, their youth sections, and their leaders without respect to ideology. This is exactly the sort of material that SHOULD be in an encyclopedia. Unfortunately, there is a pretty high WP:IDONTLIKEIT factor for matters of politics, which results periodically in ill-considered nominations such as this one. Sources to follow. Carrite (talk) 17:01, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Okay, let's begin at the beginning. It is 100% completely irrelevant to our purposes at AfD that (allegedly) 82% of the footnotes showing relate to internally-generated sources. What we need to see is evidence that THERE EXISTS OUT THERE multiple instances of significant published coverage to indicate that a subject is notable in Wikipedia terms. The nominator himself indicates there are EIGHT footnotes already showing which do not originate from the group. That number may or may not be right, I just point it out so that we are all aware that this is not six lines close paraphrased from a company website, but is rather a long, detailed, and thickly sourced piece. Carrite (talk) 17:22, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Now, second point, we need to be sure that we are searching for the right things. This organization is a factional continuation of the British Militant tendency, which itself originated as the Revolutionary Socialist League in the UK in 1964. One of the premiere academic sources on such things is Robert J. Alexander's International Trotskyism, 1929-1985: A Documented Analysis of the Movement. (Duke University Press, 1991), which deals with the Militant Tendency on pp. 21, 28, 178, 181, 406, 465, 499, 528, 576, with a full article on pp. 488-492. This is, in short, a very, very major entity in the British radical movement. Carrite (talk) 17:22, 31 May 2012 (UTC) Last edit: Carrite (talk) 18:32, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * In the same general vein, one of the leading sources from the UK on contemporary Trotskyism, John Callahan's British Trotskyism: Theory and Practice (Basil Blackwell, 1984), devotes a full chapter — about 25 pages — to the Militant Tendency, the forerunner of the International Marxist Tendency. Carrite (talk) 17:51, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Now, obviously, when two of the main sources on this general topic over 20 years old, more recent organizational evolution is not going to appear there. The point I want to make is that this is a topic of scholarly interest, with an organizational history that dates back decades, not three fat guys in a pub deciding in one night to form the UK Pretzel Party. Carrite (talk) 17:55, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Now the table is set. Let's see what's out there. Here is A PIECE from The Worker, the weekly of the Communist Party of Great Britain, entitled "Oil-slick divisions: International Marxist Tendency has suffered a damaging split..." This was published in issue no. 804, from Feb. 11, 2010. Carrite (talk) 18:06, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Here's an obit of Ted Grant, one of the primary figures of the IMT, from the UK website Revolutionary History. Note that this is the site of a magazine not affiliated with the IMT or any other organization, per THIS.  Carrite (talk) 18:12, 31 May 2012 (UTC) Last edit: Carrite (talk) 18:17, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm out of time for the day, I've put out feelers for suggestions about additional sourcing and will revisit this matter. Carrite (talk) 18:32, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for wading in here and talking some sense! FYI the "Oil slick divisions" article is already cited in the article and, I agree, it's an independent, relaible, in-depth news source (though it later slides into political opinion). I'd disagree that 1980's sources about the Militant Tendency are directly relevant to the IMT, which is a later political split from them, so something different. There is already a WP article on the Militant. Sionk (talk) 19:39, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment I see Carrite has spent a lot of time on this however I don't find his arguments convincing for a few reasons.
 * 1) While the Alexander book certainly establishes the notability of Militant tendency it makes no mention at all of the International Marxist Tendency or its predecessor the Committee for a Marxist International. This isn't surprising since the CMI/IMT was founded in 1992, one year after the book was published and seven years after the end of the period covered by the author. Similarly, while the 25 pages in the Callahan book on Militant Tendency argue for the notability of that organization it establishes nothing in regards to the IMT, not surprising since this book was published in 1985. Notability is not inherited, just like the child of a notable person isn't automatically notable, a split-off from a notable organization is not automatically notable. If the IMT was notable in and of itself you'd be able to cite a book that has a chapter on the IMT rather than reach back 20 or 30 years for books on one of its predecessors. If this were an AFD on Militant Tendency your three or four initial posts would be relevant. As it is they aren't. By your argument because the Fourth International was notable then every organisation or grouplet that can claim a lineage back to it is also notable, even if they are just "three fat guys in a pub." Political groups in general and Trotskyist groups in particular are notorious for splits upon splits upon splits so we need more to establish notability than ancestry. The group has to be notable on its own.
 * 2) Similarly, there is no Midas principle to notability. Just because Ted Grant was notable does not mean every group he belonged to is also notable. Why was Ted Grant notable? Well the lead of the obituary you cite refers to him as "the founder of the Militant Tendency" - the IMT is only mentioned fleetingly. Also, while the article appears on the Revolutionary History website it is actually taken from the World Socialist Web Site operated by a rival organisation and does not meet the criteria for reliable sources see Identifying_reliable_sources "Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for checking the facts, or with no editorial oversight. Such sources include websites and publications expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, or promotional in nature, or which rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions. Questionable sources are generally unsuitable for citing contentious claims about third parties, which includes claims against institutions, persons living or dead, as well as more ill-defined entities. The proper uses of a questionable source are very limited," so your source does not meet the criteria of being a "reliable third party publication". The same applies to your citation from "The Worker" which does not meet the criteria required of a reliable third party source and I expect the IMT itself would say the CPGB is not a reliable source.
 * 3) Accordingly, you have not shown the existence, in regards to the International Marxist Tendency, "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" which is required by WP:N to establish notability. The article fails the test. Downwoody (talk) 01:58, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 00:20, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 00:20, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment It is worth noting that political internationals are hardly ever mentioned by the media. This is true for organizations with national parties in the European Parliament. A search of Google News reveals only 5 mentions each for either the Socialist International and the Party of the European Left.  I don't think the significance of these organizations is in doubt. DJ Silverfish (talk) 19:37, 5 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep but improve the page. It cannot be seriously put in doubt that this organisation exists and is noticeable in its domain; it is even included in the Template:Trotskyism and nobody has suggested to remove it, plus the page exists in 9 other languages (including Japanese and this group has no affiliate groups in Japan). The page needs to be improved with extra references, sure - but this had to be done before starting the AfD procedure. Please check Articles_for_deletion. Since googling "International Marxist Tendency" provides about 46,000 links I cannot believe that a 120-edit user like the nominator did not know how to gather enough reliable third-party sources to improve the article before proposing its deletion. We are not here to delete any proof of the existence of organisations we don't like, we are here to give a NPOV and accurate depiction of their true features. Please let's not start a voting procedure that would just trigger a nonsensical edit war between rival political groups. --MauroVan (talk) 14:16, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Just an example of the IMT being mentioned not on obscure far-left websites but on the BBC website: --MauroVan (talk) 14:32, 1 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment Mere existence and being "noticeable in its domain" is very far below the Wikipedia notability standard stated in WP:ORG. Being included in a Wikipedia template, or having articles in other Wikipedias has no bearing on whether it is notable by the standards of this Wikipedia.  Some number of results from a Google search is irrelevant to our notability guideline. "Mentions" and "passing references" are not "significant coverage.:. The BBC blog makes a passing reference to the International Marxist Tendency, then talks some about the individual said to be head of it.  There is no significant coverage of the organization in the blog.  Edison (talk) 18:24, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment This was not my main point. My main point is that the nominator has not followed the procedure, because the sources are easy to find. BTW, this discussion is seriously biased if after any link provided the reply is always "Oh yes but this is not enough". There are literally hundreds of third-party, reliable sources talking about the IMT, what an online encyclopedia has to do is not to find one source that tells everything about the subject and paste its content on the page, the mission of Wikipedia is to gather information and display them in an organised, reliable, NPOV, understandable and extensive way. --MauroVan (talk) 08:19, 6 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep See: WP:NGO:  the organization is international in scope and information can be confirmed by multiple sources.  Also, a lot of information on minor left-wing groups does not appear in Google books and scholar, but can be found in libraries.  00:24, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment according to WP:NGO:
 * "Organizations are usually notable if they meet both of the following standards:


 * 1.   The scope of their activities is national or international in scale.
 * 2.   Information about the organization and its activities can be verified by multiple, third-party, independent, reliable sources.
 * While the first criteria is met, the second is not and since 'both criteria have to be met the IMT article fails WP:NGO. Downwoody (talk) 21:44, 4 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep Solely as being sufficiently notable per telegraph.co.uk and other RS newspapers, and in sufficient book mentions not from marxist.com or the like.  Removing SPS sources from the article still means there are RS sources remaining .  Collect (talk) 15:22, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment What RS newspapers? please provide links. Which book mentions? If you're repeating the two Carrite mentioned then please address my response above as those are passing mentions in footnotes only and not substantial. Downwoody (talk) 21:44, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep As a socialist with a lot of familiarity with Trotskyist groupings I must confess that I find this discussion truely bizarre. To anyone with any knowledge of the international Trostkyist movement the CWI and IMT are very well known groupings and it seems absolutely peculiar that anyone would argue otherwise. I understand I'm not appealing to the precise notability criteria that Wikipedia uses - instead I'm appealing to common-sense! Of course for those who have no knowledge of the ins and outs of the Trotskyist movement this is all very obscure - but that is no reason for Wikipedia not to have coverage. It is complained that references independent of the IMT are themselves from Far Left sources. Well that is hardly surprising and the same could be said of any specialist field. For example I'm interested in history and topography and I recently added an article on John Swete. That article is sourced with numerous references but if I had to exclude all references from people involved in the same obscure field (topography relating to the county of Devon) the article would also fail the rediculous criteria being demanded here. I added the John Swete article because I felt it was an omission from that field. I would do the same for the IMT if there was no article on it. I'm sure that the IMT piece can be greatly improved but it shouldn't be removed for essentially politically motivated reasons.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by DartmoorDave (talk • contribs) 16:19, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment please provide evidence other than hearsay or your personal knowledge that this group is "very well known". If this is true it shouldn't be a problem listing Reliable Sources that say this. You refer to sources already in the article but those are almost all self-references by the IMT or otherwise not reliable. Downwoody (talk) 21:44, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment The history of the Trotskyist movement is full of splits. It takes time for academic works on the subject matter to be published and to my knowledge there are no serious studies of the Trotskyist movement published in the last 5 years. Although as far as I can tell that probably wouldn't help you because they are more than likely to be authored by "communists". There are already sources cited but you appear not to like sources from "reds". I might add if you know so little of the subject that you think this entry should be deleted then you are probably out of your depth and should stick to a subject matter you know something about. PS. I'm not, nor have I ever been, a member of the IMT or the CWI. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DartmoorDave (talk • contribs) 22:25, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment I'm sorry that you feel the need to resort to personal abuse. I suspect that's because you are unable to justify retention of the article using Wikipedia's policies. There is no problem with sources who are "Communists" and indeed there are a number of Marxists who have written scholarly books or journal articles published by credible publishing houses or peer reviewed journals. That no one has been able to produce independent reliable sources that establish notability by referencing the group with anything but a passing reference indicates that it fails the test for notability established by WP:NGO, WP:ORG and WP:N notwithstanding the protestations of the group's members. If it takes time for academic works to be published on the subject and no academic works have yet been published that give the IMT anything more than a passing mention then obviously including an article about them here is premature but the fact that the IMT has not been noticed by Reliable Sources does not justify using self-sourcing and questionable sources to establish notability. Downwoody (talk) 04:23, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. The notability of the whole IMT cannot be verified by taking it only as a whole, for a number of reasons.  First, it's only been known as the International Marxist Tendency since 2006, having been the Committee for a Marxist International before that.  Second, and more importantly, it's composed of a number of national sections, so a good deal of the time its coverage is not through the whole international.  For instance, the Encyclopedia of British and Irish Political organizations discusses Socialist Appeal, the British section, as opposed to the whole group.  This article from Spartacist Canada discusses Fightback, the Canadian section, in some detail.  It requires a serious misunderstanding of Trotskyist internationals to dismiss, as Downwoody does above, references to its constituent parts as not showing the notability of the larger group that they are a part of.  The IMT certainly became notable in late 2010 when Alan Woods was described as a political advisor to Hugo Chavez (1,2, 3).  Woods is the central leader of the IMT and it is through his activity as leader of this group that he has become a public figure.  The article needs some serious cleanup but that is not an argument for non-notability. Cadriel (talk) 15:25, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment - bear in mind organisations do not inherit notability from one another on Wikipedia. There already exist Wikipedia articles on many of the national member groups of IMT and they should each be judged on their own merit. This AfD is discussing the notability of IMT/CMI. The CMI seems to have resulted from a minority split from the Militant in 1992, therefore is not the same organisation (the Militant continued as the Socialist Party). Sionk (talk) 19:27, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment To be clear, I don't think the IMT is notable because of Militant or the CWI, whose history I am well familiar with. However, I think that the specific case of sections of a political international are different, such as in the case of the IMT where any member of Fightback, Socialist Appeal or any of the other sections would tell you that they are members of the IMT.  There is no difference between "Fightback" and "the IMT in Canada."  Therefore to say that the part could be notable but not the whole seems to me to be splitting hairs.  In the case of Alan Woods, the IMT is not discussed in detail but it is his actions as the head of the IMT that made multiple news sources.  These are cases where establishing notability means taking a nuanced view of the type of organization we are talking about.  Cadriel (talk) 20:08, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment So basically you state "ILIKEIT," so it should be kept despite grossly failing WP:ORG, while relying on "inherited notability." Sorry, that doesn't work here. Take your "Nuanced view" elsewhere. Edison (talk) 04:59, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment Cadriel got the point IMHO. An International is hardly referred to as such in any national press, because the name of the national section is used as a placeholder for the whole group. In a sense, this is an improper replacement when the object being discussed is the general political line of such organisation, because that political line derives from the international organisation and not from the local section. Similar improper naming occurs when the name of the journal is used instead of the official name of the group. In those cases what Wikipedia does is using the proper, official name instead of following common usage. We have a duty to clarify through rational organisation of information, and not just to record by compiling. Example: International Working Union of Socialist Parties. --MauroVan (talk) 08:19, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment Who said anything about failing against any policy? I am clarifying that you cannot appropriately separate the international from its national sections in deciding notability.  Functionally there is no difference between saying "Fightback" and saying "the International Marxist Tendency in Canada" and it is improper to use WP:NOTINHERITED to try and create one.  Cadriel (talk) 11:08, 6 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep...for the reasons outlined by Cadriel above. The IMT's history, its origins in the UK Labor Party and the particular strand of politics pursued by the group and its national sections are ipso facto notable. DJ Silverfish (talk) 18:37, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment Your comments about the "history," the "origin," the:"strand" and the "national sections" abysmally fail the relevant Wikipedia notability guideline WP:ORG. Edison (talk) 04:54, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment I can't see any reason for this article to be removed, as other users have commented. If it were deleted, articles about almost every other trotskyist international (CWI, IST, etc) would also have to go, as they have even poorer citations and references. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.26.249.30 (talk) 12:46, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment The existence of other articles which do not demonstrate satisfaction of WP:ORG is not a valid reason to keep this one. Edison (talk) 14:09, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment Basically once you get organizations formed after 1985 (the end of Robert Alexander's International Trotskyism, a massive reference work on the Trotskyist movement published by a university press) 99% of the references to Trotskyist organizations are in the publicatiosn of other such organizations. In the case of the IMT there are multiple independent sources.  The 2010 controversy with Alan Woods as leader of the IMT clearly establishes notability, and this discussion should be closed.  Cadriel (talk) 14:53, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment Here is a mention of the IMT, by its own name, in the Financial Times: [Chávez gestures mask rising LatAm clout]  This is a separate, independent, reliable source and goes further to establish notability of the IMT.  The IMT's views are referenced in [Censored 2011], a book about stories that were neglected in the mainstream press.  The IMT is clearly notable, and the AfD proposal is primarily a complaint about the quality of the article, not establishing substantial notability problems. Cadriel (talk) 12:59, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
 * "'Comment''' Such "mentions" or "passing references" are not always "significant coverage." Edison (talk) 14:09, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. The most trivial source review demonstrates notability.  Should never have been nominated. —chaos5023 (talk) 17:30, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Note to closing admin It's come to my attention that this AFD has been the subject of canvassing via a yahoo group called "leftist trainspotters". The link that has been sent to me is http://groups.yahoo.com/group/leftist_trainspotters/message/121270 but I think it only works if you belong to the group. Downwoody (talk) 22:19, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. The IMT is a major Trotskyist organization with sections around the world. It is referenced by other Trotskyist groups and the press in general. It is not necessary to site sources that the IMT 'exists', which is really what's being asked here. This purging of wiki has got to stop.DwaltersMIA (talk) 02:16, 7 June 2012 (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.