Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/League of Communists of Yugoslavia in Serbia


 * 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. Black Kite (talk) 17:30, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

League of Communists of Yugoslavia in Serbia

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable and unreferenced article. Buttons (talk) 21:29, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 00:25, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep, now referenced. Small party, but still one of the main post-SFRY communist groups in the country, with 1,5 decades of continous history. No need for deletion. --Soman (talk) 07:34, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment Two of four sources appear to be from the party's webpage. Like you said, small party (now defunct) but found and no evidence to support the claim it was a main post-SFRY communist party. I don't see any notability here, definitely not its owns article anyway. Buttons (talk) 19:17, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment de-registered doesn't mean defunct. And the fact that it is now de-registered means that it had been registered, for which certain criteria would be fulfilled (not sure RS rules, but in BiH it would include quite significant registration fees). I would invoke WP:PAPER here, the article does no harm, it is not a ploy or hoax but a serious attempt to carry on a legacy of a movement that once governed the country. Studying the post-SFRY parties and their developments is essential to understanding the SFRY era itself. --Soman (talk) 19:27, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Re-comment It means exactly that since the party would not be able to function legally, but you can call it what you like. The criteria for political registration in Serbia is 10,000 validated signatures from eligible-to-vote citizens (and 1,000 I believe for minority groups), not that its a issue here. I could agree with you about preserving the article for historical significance, but as I before said, it has none. Sorry. There are hundreds of active and hundreds more defunct parties in Serbia with zero relevance here or there, this one somehow managed to show up on Wikipedia by chance without anyone explaining why it deserved to be. P.S. Wikipedia is not here to study anything, just to promote the facts (ideally). Buttons (talk) 21:54, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I'd say that 10,000 validated signatures is a good criteria for notability, again recalling WP:PAPER. If there is hundreds of other groups that fulfill the same criteria, I see no problem in including them as well. --Soman (talk) 09:11, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:52, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:52, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:52, 8 December 2012 (UTC)


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


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Ri l ey   00:03, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

 
 * Keep per Soman. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 22:14, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 06:03, 18 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete. Notability of party (as opposed to WP:EXIST) is not supported by independent sources. 1292simon (talk) 12:18, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep - I favor the lowest of all possible barriers for inclusion of articles on political parties, their leaders, and their youth sections at Wikipedia without regard to size or ideology. This is the sort of material that SHOULD be in a comprehensive encyclopedia and I believe we should treat them the same way we treat villages, rivers, highways, high schools, and professional athletes — if existence is confirmed, they should be presumed notable. If you wish to consider this an WP:IGNOREALLRULES defense, that's fine... It is the way these things should be handled. Carrite (talk) 19:03, 18 December 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.