Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marxist–Leninist Party, USA


 * 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. Stifle (talk) 09:59, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Marxist–Leninist Party, USA

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Cities exclusively to self published sources; the only non-self published source is a mention in no detail of another organization. This group does not appear to have received significant, non-trivial coverage in independent, reliable sources, which means it fails the notability guideline and should be deleted. Toa Nidhiki05 21:05, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:08, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:08, 16 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep for now The article has been here for 15 years, and as far as I can tell, no one has objected until now. Given its longevity, I think the first step should be a call to establish notability in third-party sources, not just remove it. Can we wait until the end of the year before revisiting the matter of deletion? TechBear &#124; Talk &#124; Contributions 16:35, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
 * If you want to try and find sources to improve it, please do, but if it doesn’t meet ORGCRIT (significant non-trivial coverage in multiple independent, reliable secondary sources), it has to be deleted. There is no reason to remove this nomination and that is not how things are done here. Toa Nidhiki05 18:52, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Noting that it has been tagged for third party sourcing since 2014.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:05, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment: Here's a few books that cover the organization:
 * (starts at page 85)
 * Also found minor (not really significant) coverage on The Washington Post, as well as other mentions in reliable sources that didn't go beyond the organization appearing in an enumeration. --MarioGom (talk) 20:18, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
 * the WaPo article reads: "At least four separate groups of protesters will be marching"..."The fourth and smallest group is a Marxist-Leninist organization" it was part of what the Post describes as a group, called the Revolutionary Communist Party (USA) Committee for a Fitting Welcome or RCP (USA) that came together for the purpose of staging a single organization.  Whether it is the same at our Marxist–Leninist Party, USA, is not clear to me, but, then, one of the main problems with Marxism is the effort needed just to figure out which Marxist faction is which.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:27, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Also, is this coverage substantial or is it just saying “this organization exists”? Because the latter doesn’t count as substantial, non-trivial coverage. Some examples of what would qualify:
 * Also found minor (not really significant) coverage on The Washington Post, as well as other mentions in reliable sources that didn't go beyond the organization appearing in an enumeration. --MarioGom (talk) 20:18, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
 * the WaPo article reads: "At least four separate groups of protesters will be marching"..."The fourth and smallest group is a Marxist-Leninist organization" it was part of what the Post describes as a group, called the Revolutionary Communist Party (USA) Committee for a Fitting Welcome or RCP (USA) that came together for the purpose of staging a single organization.  Whether it is the same at our Marxist–Leninist Party, USA, is not clear to me, but, then, one of the main problems with Marxism is the effort needed just to figure out which Marxist faction is which.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:27, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Also, is this coverage substantial or is it just saying “this organization exists”? Because the latter doesn’t count as substantial, non-trivial coverage. Some examples of what would qualify:
 * the WaPo article reads: "At least four separate groups of protesters will be marching"..."The fourth and smallest group is a Marxist-Leninist organization" it was part of what the Post describes as a group, called the Revolutionary Communist Party (USA) Committee for a Fitting Welcome or RCP (USA) that came together for the purpose of staging a single organization.  Whether it is the same at our Marxist–Leninist Party, USA, is not clear to me, but, then, one of the main problems with Marxism is the effort needed just to figure out which Marxist faction is which.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:27, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Also, is this coverage substantial or is it just saying “this organization exists”? Because the latter doesn’t count as substantial, non-trivial coverage. Some examples of what would qualify:

Examples of substantial coverage that would generally be sufficient to meet the requirement:
 * 1) A news article discussing a prolonged controversy regarding a corporate merger,
 * 2) A scholarly article, a book passage, or ongoing media coverage focusing on a product or organization,
 * 3) A documentary film exploring environmental impact of the corporation's facilities or products,
 * 4) An encyclopedia entry giving an overview of the history of an organization,
 * 5) A report by a consumer watchdog organization on the safety of a specific product,
 * 6) An extensive how-to guide written by people wholly independent of the company or product (e.g. For Dummies).
 * Toa Nidhiki05</i> 20:30, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
 * The Elbaum citation is wonderful, as a parody of Marxist factionalism, it is priceless: "Second was the Central Organization of US Marxist-Leninists (COUSML), which had been formed in 1973 mainly by the Cleveland-based Ameri­can Communist Workers Movement. In january 1980 this group, too, held a found­ing congress and declared itself to  be  the Marxist-Leninist Party. The MLP thus became the sixth antirevisionist group to declare that it had founded the vanguard of the US working class -but with just 100 members it was the smallest vanguard yet. The shrinking size of newly proclaimed vanguards constituted a definite pat­tern: the  MLP, CPUSA(ML) and CWP gatherings in  1980, 1978 and 1979, respec­tively, were all smaller than the first wave of founding congresses,  CLP's in  1974, RCP's in 1975 and CP(ML)'s in 1977."E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:38, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
 * That seems straight out of Monty Python. <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Toa</i> <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Nidhiki05</i> 20:42, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, I believe that Elbaum cites the Pythons.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:17, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I provided 6 book passages spanning from 1987 to 2018. I didn't expect anyone really going into detail about The Washington Post coverage, which is obviously not significant. Keep in mind that an organization being considered ridiculous is completely irrelevant to determine notability. Low membership count does not necessarily imply non-notability. I'm currently looking at other sources beyond Google Books to check if there's further coverage. --MarioGom (talk) 22:25, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
 * There were plenty of mentions in USA local newspapers about events involving the MLP and its various predecessor groups, in particular the COUSML. However, all of these are routine coverage on protest attendance and subversive activities at universities and factories, nothing standing out. As far as I've seen. --MarioGom (talk) 23:13, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
 * You haven’t given any quotes or answered if the coverage was significant and non-trivial. Being mentioned in passing doesn’t count as notable. <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Toa</i> <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Nidhiki05</i> 23:44, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
 * All these books have specific sections (1 or 2 pages) that cover COUSML/MLP specifically. I think all of them have available previews in Google Books. I can provide links and quotes if necessary. --MarioGom (talk) 23:51, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
 * gBooks searches can be a little random; I am getting none of the books you list except Elbaum on Books searches "Marxist–Leninist Party, USA".  Searching "Marxist–Leninist Party" + USA I find Extremism in America: A Reader - Page 85 by Lymen Tower Sargent, "Marxist-Leninist Party One of the parties that split off from the Communist Party is the Marxist- Leninist Party, which was supported by the Communist Party of Albania"    The book then replicates a 1983 communique.  the is not WP:SIGCOV.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:40, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Maoism in the Developed World - Page 37 by Robert Jackson Alexander - 2001 - ‎"The CPUSA (M-L) traced its origins to a small split in the pro-Moscow Communist Party of the USA in 1958, establishing the Provisional Organizing Committee for the Reconstruction of a Marxist- Leninist Party. In 1965, the majority of that ..." and continues, very briefly, to tell us which Albanian faction sided with whom.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:49, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Perhaps this sort of fine detail about a political party that never qualified for a ballot belongs in arcane accounts of infighting in the very tine U.S. Marxist parties of the 1980s, but I do not see that brief accounts of vote tallies at tiny partisan "congresses" passes WP:GNG.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:49, 18 July 2019 (UTC)


 *  Delete  an American political party with fewer than 100 members that lasted only a few years and never contested an election belongs right where it is, in a small sub-heading of a chapter of book published by Verso Books. It could be mentioned if we have an article dedicated to untangling marxist factionalism.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:38, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Merge to New Communist movement. The books I provided above are probably enough to source a section in New Communist movement discussing COUSML and MLP together with other similar groups active at that time. --MarioGom (talk) 23:13, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Or Keep and improve. As there are enough sources to justify a short article too. --MarioGom (talk) 23:39, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Please demonstrate that the citations above are about this splinter group and that the sources you cite offer WP:SIGCOV.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:14, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Have you looked at the sources? It will be necessary to do so and to establish that they contain WP:SIGCOV by bringing the material to this or the article page before arguing that they do more than mention the organization's existence.  It is rare for us to keep a political party as a stand alone article unless it wins elections.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:07, 18 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete - No WP:RS to establish WP:NOTABILITY. XavierItzm (talk) 02:34, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Redirect- This article has been here for 15 years, and no one has objected, therefore I think the first step should be redirected to New Communist movement and not be deleted. -MA Javadi (talk) 15:41, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
 * This is not a valid rational for a Redirect.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:12, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Yep. Keep in mind that these articles on small parties only get a handful of views a month, so it’s very easy for them to slip between the cracks. <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Toa</i> <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Nidhiki05</i> 12:37, 24 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.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 08:53, 24 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.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, <b style="color: White;">Night</b><b style="color: White">fury</b> 09:43, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
 *  Redirect  to New Communist movement. In sum, although the book list may look impressive, the ones I can access have mere mentions, or are actually about a different "Marxist–Leninist Party." The editor who posted that list has not responded to requests to provide the texts he found.  In fact, no one has provided WP:SIGCOV of this short-lived political party that never ran a candidate and that, in the only detailed source  anyone has found, this "party" is said to have had 100 members - with no evidence that it ever got on a ballot, let alone won an election.   E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:14, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
 * E.M.Gregory: I started adding some inline citations to these books in the article itself (still work in progress). Other than expanding the citations there, I'm not sure how to proceed on this AfD. Should I just add all the pending inline citations to the article so that we can evaluate the coverage? Or is it better for me to add here excerpts from the sources? Thanks! --MarioGom (talk) 11:07, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
 * To be useful, citations need to be more than mere mentions. They need to qualify as WP:SIGCOV of this party.  The way to do that is to add text, quotations from the source, to the footnote. And, of course, the source itself has to be a WP:RS and WP:INDEPENDENT.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:14, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I think these are the sources that merit consideration for notability:
 * All of them have links to full text or exact page in Google Books preview, so that should be enough for people participating in this discussion. As far as I know, the article missing more quotes and inline citatiosn is not a factor to consider for deletion. When reading the sources, keep in mind that we should consider their coverage for ACWM(M-L), COUSML and MLP-USA, since most sources (primary and secondary) establish a clear lineage for the organization (ACWM(M-L), COUSML and MLP-USA). --MarioGom (talk) 18:15, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Note that (Sargent, 1995) covers the organization, but just as a collection of primary source material, adding little additional context. --MarioGom (talk) 18:17, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Page should include material from Klehr: "In addition to former Albanian Communist leader Enver Hohxa, the Party's other hero is Joseph Stalin, it has proclaimed - 'Eternal glory to J.V. Stalin!'"  And from Elbaum the fact that this party had "just 100 members."E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:25, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
 * All of them have links to full text or exact page in Google Books preview, so that should be enough for people participating in this discussion. As far as I know, the article missing more quotes and inline citatiosn is not a factor to consider for deletion. When reading the sources, keep in mind that we should consider their coverage for ACWM(M-L), COUSML and MLP-USA, since most sources (primary and secondary) establish a clear lineage for the organization (ACWM(M-L), COUSML and MLP-USA). --MarioGom (talk) 18:15, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Note that (Sargent, 1995) covers the organization, but just as a collection of primary source material, adding little additional context. --MarioGom (talk) 18:17, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Page should include material from Klehr: "In addition to former Albanian Communist leader Enver Hohxa, the Party's other hero is Joseph Stalin, it has proclaimed - 'Eternal glory to J.V. Stalin!'"  And from Elbaum the fact that this party had "just 100 members."E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:25, 1 August 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.