Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Network of Communists


 * 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. While the keeps are soft/not based in policy, there is also no one but the nom arguing for delete. No objection to a re-nomination at a time when more input might be forthcoming Star   Mississippi  14:54, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Network of Communists

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Regarding this movement there are only primary sources, published by the movement itself, while the tertiary sources seem to be totally absent. In practice, this movement does not seem to meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Scia Della Cometa (talk) 21:32, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics,  and Italy. Shellwood (talk) 21:51, 12 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep. Not only the subject is encyclopedic, but I have to say that this article is also very good. In Italy, like in other countries, there is a number of mostly extra-parliamentary and/or underground communist parties of all stripes: I think that each of them should have a place in Wikipedia. The Network of Communists is especially relevant, has been active for virtually 25 years and is mentioned in virtually 25,000 Google hits. --Checco (talk) 16:00, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Extra-parliamentary and/or clandestine parties should have a place in Wikipedia if they are verifiable from third-party sources. On the basis of which sources was the page written? Furthermore, as I repeat here, Google hits do not demonstrate the relevance of a topic, it is enough that an article contains the words "Rete" and "Communisti" to be counted.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 21:16, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:41, 20 June 2022 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 12:48, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Soft keep. Probably with a deeper research we could be able to find the third-party sources that the OP is asking for. The article definitely needs improvement, though. A simple Google Books search gives plenty of hits. It might be that most of them are produced by the RdC itself, but there might be some having an entire paragraph or section about the party. Yakme (talk) 09:57, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * 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.