Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Neutral Group of Social-Democrats in Berlin


 * 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. Spartaz Humbug! 02:49, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Neutral Group of Social-Democrats in Berlin

 * – ( View AfD View log )



Minor social-democratic group. Not notable. Only source is footnote in the Lenin's collected works. DonaldDuck (talk) 06:33, 23 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep - I favor a low bar for the inclusion of articles about political parties and their youth sections, regardless of ideology. This is the sort of information that SHOULD be in an encyclopedia and if an organization can be verified to have existed, as this group can, it should not be excluded on the basis of sourcing guidelines, but rather considered inclusion-worthy per se. Certainly a case could be made that this should be merged into an article on Bazarov, which would be easier to source out to satisfy stringent interpretation of Wikipedia's notability guidelines. As there is currently no such merge article, this should be left to stand in the interim with appropriate tags for more sources. Carrite (talk) 14:38, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Here's a LINK to the article on Bazarov in the Russian Wikipedia, incidentally. If you have Google Chrome you can set it for automatic translation to get the gist... Carrite (talk) 15:01, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
 * There is English-language content on Bazarov in Robert C. Williams' The Other Bolsheviks: Lenin and His Critics, 1904-1914. (Indiana University Press, 1986), esp. pp. 39-40. It's virtually certain that a page will appear on him at some juncture and a merge would be very appropriate at that point, in my opinion. Carrite (talk) 15:24, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
 * V.A. Bazarov is notable person, but this doesn't mean that the group is notable. I got only 4 results in Russian and 9 in English by Google books searsh. --DonaldDuck (talk) 02:06, 24 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep - There is enough media coverage and academic attention regarding this. Eduemoni↑talk↓  15:21, 23 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep, notable grouping in the then Russian Social Democracy (that as a movement played a huge historical importance). Btw, as creator of the article I was not notified about the AfD. --Soman (talk) 16:37, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
 * In 1905-1917 all social-democrats together got 15-20 seats in the Russian parliament (out of 450). Social-democracy had no particular importance in Russian politics at that time. And this Berlin neutral group was small faction within social-democratic party. Communist Party of the Soviet Union undoubtedly had huge historical importance, but that is not so for every it's predecessor. That's like creating articles for every ancestor of some important historical person. --DonaldDuck (talk) 02:18, 24 April 2011 (UTC).


 * The number of elected representatives of a party has little to do with anything. Most political parties around the world have NO elected representatives in national legislatures. That doesn't mean they are unworthy of encyclopedic reportage. As for the assertion that "Social-democracy had no particular importance in Russian politics" between the years 1905 and 1917 — that's simply mockable. Grab a book or two on the 1905 Revolution, for starters. In any event... We all agree that Bazarov is unquestionably inclusion-worthy, I gather, so I'll see if I can get a bio up on him on Monday or Tuesday to render this moot. Carrite (talk) 02:35, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
 * At the time of 1905 revolution, SDs were just one of the extreme-left parties, as well as SRs, in the political spectrum. Constitutional Democratic Party or Octobrists were much more important. --DonaldDuck (talk) 07:28, 24 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Speedy Delete as copyvio. I hate to say this, boys and girls, but this stub is a straight cut-and-paste of THIS FOOTNOTE from v. 36 of the English edition of Lenin's Collected Works. I've already got the essence of the information in a page on Bazarov that I'm working on today. I'll use the party name as a redirect later. Carrite (talk) 16:29, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment: Do notice the following passage: "Public Domain: Lenin Internet Archive.  You may freely copy, distribute, display and perform this work, as well as make derivative and commercial works. Please credit “Marxists Internet Archive” as your source.", thus not a copyvio. Reference to MIA is clearly given. --Soman (talk) 22:15, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Lenin's works are in public domain. Not sure about the footnotes. --DonaldDuck (talk) 01:05, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * It's a surprisingly close call, copyright-wise. Russian copyright law establishes retroactive copyright. Since this is unsigned, I don't think there's a worry. Good point on this not being a cut-and-dried copyvio though, I'll redact that. Carrite (talk) 02:28, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Here's the link to work-in-progress on V. A. Bazarov, which includes the information contained in this copyvio-stub and should render this deletion moot. Carrite (talk) 20:42, 24 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Redirect to V. A. Bazarov. Carrite (talk) 02:30, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:15, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:15, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Baseball   Watcher  18:34, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * No Action. Not clear to me that this is a candidate for deletion.
 * Although this is indeed text copied & pasted from a note in the collected works of V. Lenin, published in 1971 published by Progress Publishers, a now-defunct Soviet publisher. Given the ideological mandate of the printing house, soviet copyright policies, and an explicit statement on the hosting website, it is safe to conclude that the whole work is within the public domain.
 * A public domain template should be attached to current article. Done.
 * In my opinion, the article does not even come close to having a notability issue, and I would ask the nominator to reconsider his understanding of notability. I notice that the nominator has routinely been involved in disputes with other wikipedian regarding the general subject, and applaud him for seeking consensus.  However, that such a group won 15-20 parliamentary seats in 1917 would to me seem to constitute de facto proof of notability, rather than the contrary.
 * A Redirect does not require consensus administrative intervention. I would concur if Bazarov article is to include a distinct subsection on the 'Neutral Group of Social Democrats' that the redirect can point to;  otherwise, I'd be more of a mind to add a 'see also' link at the top.  If there is other information pertinent to the 'Neutral Group of Social Democrats' which does not directly involve Bazarov, the article can easily be reverted and/or expanded.
 * - 0x69494411 14:26, 2 May 2011 (UTC) [edited:  0x69494411 17:46, 2 May 2011 (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.