Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/International Socialist Review (1997)


 * 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. Normally, if there's an obvious merge target, merging would make sense, per WP:ATD, but makes a good argument why straight-up delete is better in this case. -- RoySmith (talk) 21:26, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

International Socialist Review (1997)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Article has no sources. Such sources as I can locate are all within the circle of the tiny socialist movement that sponsors the journal. Article has been tagged for notability for over a year.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:40, 12 May 2015 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
 * Note there were previous publications named International Socialist Review, a notable one founded in 1900 and a less notable one founded in 1956. Their notability does not carry over to the modern publication.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:56, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete There is no presentation of notability.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:09, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Merge into International Socialist Organization, where primary sources (such as its own masthead, or the sources that E.M.Gregory found) are likely to be acceptable for verification. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 12:37, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Merge per Hrothulf. VandVictory (talk) 23:05, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Merge per Hrothulf. VandVictory (talk) 23:05, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:56, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete. Per nom, and d !vote by Tony. Non-notable.  There's nothing of note to merge.  There's not even anything that passes wp:v, as it is all uncited. If someone want to create RS-supported material, they can do so at the proposed target. But there is nothing to merge. Epeefleche (talk) 03:29, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:39, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:39, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:39, 23 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete Completely unreferenced, completely unnotable. SilverSurfingSerpant (talk) 01:43, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment - My recollection is that this publication was part of a single piece on three magazines all called International Socialist Review and that it was split off. International Socialist Review (1900) was the very important (and well covered in independent sources) original; the title was revisited by the Socialist Workers Party in 1956 and again by the International Socialist Organization. I think merger and redirection to International Socialist Organization is reasonable. The magazine is still going, I subscribe to it, but it is pretty doubtful that sources exist sufficient to support a free-standing piece. Carrite (talk) 14:26, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi Carrite. We don't merge uncited/challenged text -- which is all we have here.  If anyone wishes to create information at the target article, preferably with RS citations, they are free to. But there is nothing here that is appropriate to merge. Epeefleche (talk) 12:11, 28 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Note - the editor formerly had a wp article, but was found to be NN and the article was deleted at AfD. Epeefleche (talk) 12:10, 28 May 2015 (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.