Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/News and Letters Committees


 * 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 keep. Randykitty (talk) 17:01, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

News and Letters Committees

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Article primarily sources to the organization’s website and newspaper, and the few citations that don’t (7 and 8) aren’t actually about the party, but individual members. Organization does not appear to have significant, non-trivial coverage in reliable sources. Toa Nidhiki05 15:22, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 15:57, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 15:58, 29 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep - I've added some information from Alexander, the most useful independent source for Trotskyist groups, which has a couple of pages covering the group in some detail. It's tricky to identify which source could be a second non-trivial, independent source for notability, as so many hits are for material published by the group, but there are enough hits that I'm confident it's out there somewhere. Warofdreams talk 16:05, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep. The perspective of this organization is completely unique and it would be unwarranted to delete it. Dunayevskaya was admired by scholars such as Marcuse who is very famous and she was the central leader. I am sure the page could be improved but it should not be deleted. I am extremely poor at Wikipedia but I understand I am not to use hang on so I did not. But it would be uwarranted to delete Rmalhotr (talk) 17:23, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep - per Warofdreams. Isingness (talk)
 * Redirect to Raya Dunayevskaya. Most of the article is just promo/directory for the group (e.g. mission statements, chapter listing, see WP:NOT) sourced to the group's own material. What's not promo/directory is already discussed in the Dunayevskaya article. Academic coverage of the group is actually coverage of Dunayevskaya that usually includes a sentence like "Raya Dunayevskaya founded this group". There is little to no coverage specifically of the article's subject in RS. So, redirect to the actually notable (under Wikipedia guidelines) entity as R to section. Bakazaka (talk) 19:01, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep per above. I wish the nominator (who is also nominating many other small leftist groups) would do some research WP:BEFORE these nominations.--TM 00:25, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I’m nominating a bunch of stub articles for minor, irrelevant political parties of all types that haven’t been properly vetted. Many haven’t even been edited in years or ever. If parties don’t have significant, non-trivial coverage, they don’t meet the criteria for an article here, and I think virtually every party I’ve nominated fails that test. Toa Nidhiki05 03:22, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
 * It is on then nominator to do research BEFORE nominating. As has been shown in a number of these discussions, sources are easily available. That is why a number of them have been kept. AFD is not for improving Wikipedia. It is for deciding whether sources exist or not. It doesn't matter if the sources are on the page or not. They must simply exist.--TM 11:32, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
 * 1) Most of the articles I’ve nominated have been deleted or redirected.
 * 2) The fact a few sources exist that say an organization exists does not establish significant, non-trivial coverage. A topic has to be addressed directly in detail that isn’t just trivial - which means that a source that simply says “this party exists” or “this party has ballot access” isn’t actually notable. In this case, all of the sources either fall into the “this party exists” category or actually mention the party only in the context of the founder, meaning it actually should go in the article about the founder, because it’s just duplicating information (and in this case serving as little more than a promotional piece exclusively using self-published sources(. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Toa Nidhiki05 12:13, 30 April 2019 (UTC)


 *  Merge  ( to Raya Dunayevskaya. Sourcing is woefully inadequate.  And the assertion that "I'm confident (a 2nd source is) out there somewhere" does not suffice.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:11, 1 May 2019 (UTC) per sources added.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:05, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Note that all sources I can find describe this ORG as the personal project of Raya Dunayevskaya, the org's founder and head until her death. Her correspondence describes local branches, but if there are sources that tell us things like the org's size, number of member, or impact I am not seeing them.  It appears to be just another of the endless tiny groups Trotskyites regularly splinter into.  I have no clue what the issue was that caused this tiny faction to form in 1953, or what caused it to split up in 2008 (according to unsourced text on Dunayevskaya's page.   the lack of such info is an indicator of this outfit's lack of notability.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:36, 2 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep: I added a couple of references and extended the text to note the editorial role of Charles Denby. I agree with Bakazak's comments about much of the current content tending to set out their current proposition rather than provide an encyclopaedic view, but I see this as a matter for improvement rather than redirecting to a section of the Raya Dunayevskaya article. While she was a prime mover in this group, others involved have included their observer at the 1961 Socialisme ou Barbarie conference ), Eugene Gogol (also see a brief discussion of the group's influence into Europe in Jon Beasley-Murray's review in Radical Philosophy 123, p41-42), Denby as I've mentioned, and in Glasgow Harry McShane, whose engagement with the group is described on pages 253-4 of his autobiography. Overall, I think there is enough to justify a distinct article. AllyD (talk) 09:20, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I genuinely appreciate your efforts, but having reviewed the sources you've linked, I don't see them as significant coverage of the group that is the subject of this article. They are passing mentions, or at most one or two sentences. The McShane autobiography is not an independent source. Nobody here disagrees that the group verifiably existed. But existing isn't enough to justify a Wikipedia article. That said, if you wanted to create an article on Eugene Gogol, those refs are a good place to start. Bakazaka (talk) 00:24, 4 May 2019 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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.