Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Organisation for Marxist Unity - New Zealand


 * 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, default to keep. There are good arguments on both sides. I agree that the references are not up to a desirable standard, but they're enough for me to spare the axe. Non-admin closure to help with an extraordinary backlog. (Otherwise, I wouldn't be handling such a controversial case.) Shalom (Hello • Peace) 03:43, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Organisation for Marxist Unity - New Zealand

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Contested prod. Article has no reliable, independent sources, and Google provides none either (only 28 Google hits, 31 if you don't add New Zealand to the search. No hits outside Wikipedia for the old name. The organisation existed (and the old name is mentioned in some books, but no indepth coverage is found (and there is no mention of the new name in any Google-ized books, suggesting that it has sank into oblivion. The weblink given is to a post by the OMU, not some independent review of them. Fram (talk) 09:25, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Imho, this constitutes a misinterpretation of notability criteria. The point of demanding notability criteria is to weed out spoofs, jokes and organisations solely existing of the www. Political organisations cannot be judged equally to companies, there is little empirical evidence of the self-promotion spamming that is frequent when it comes to political organisations. Some might feel that a certain topic is unintersting and irrelevant, but personally I find the history of the CPNZ highly intriguing, and seen with the backdrop of the NZ left as a whole, OMU is an interesting outfit with a 30+ years of history. WP:PAPER provides an important principle here. --Soman (talk) 10:30, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Dear, dear. All material on such things is not digitized, and socialist parties without a vast presence on the WWW in this day and age are nevertheless notable and encyclopaedic. Relata refero (talk) 18:09, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. GHits is certainly not reliable. This party is certainly important for researchers in the area of the politic history and communist history. -- Magioladitis (talk) 19:20, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment for all these AfD's: it's nice to see the same three people on all these AfD's, certainly when one of them has specifically been asked by one of the others to comment on these. But anyway, i appreciate Relata Refero starting with a condescending "dear, dear", but this just hides the fact that no reliable sources have been provided for any of these articles. Empty claims that it is "important for researchers" and so on should be supported by sources, or ignored by the closing admin.Fram (talk) 07:43, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Your point? We're all three long-term users with diverse interests. I apologise if the "Dear, dear" irritated you, but sometimes I wonder whether people realise that all the world's information is not already on the Web. Sad.
 * And as for "empty claims", I am puzzled about which part of "socialist parties without a vast presence on the WWW in this day and age are nevertheless notable and encyclopaedic" is an empty claim. Also, don't be snappish. Relata refero (talk) 08:52, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * And why are they "notable and encyclopedic"? Anyone can start a political party, and certainly the political extremes (far right and far left) are notorious for their groupuscules, with a very limited number of participants and no impact whatsoever. To claim that a party is "notable and encyclopedic" without providing any reference supporting that statement is making an "empty claim". Fram (talk) 09:14, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * No, its an opinion. Relata refero (talk) 09:38, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Leaving 1 (and emphasis on '1') comment on a user talk page is by no means illicit canvassing. --Soman (talk) 15:35, 20 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete - I'm pretty sure we don't need an article on each of the gazillion tiny communist splinter parties that have existed in NZ. Unless it can be shown that this one was notable in some way, we don't need this article, especially since there are good umbrella articles on the history of communism and socialism in NZ. --Helenalex (talk) 09:56, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep per Soman. Andrzej Kmicic (talk) 03:39, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment on Soman (and therefore also Andrzej) - The notability criteria very clearly go beyond "weed[ing] out spoofs, jokes and organisations solely existing of the www". They say that to merit inclusion in Wikipedia, subject must be notable: "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." This is not the case here. So far all the advocates of this page have simply asserted that the group is notable, encyclopaediac, interesting etc without providing any evidence. I have an open mind here; I'm willing to accept that they might actually be notable. But nothing I've read has indicated that to be the case. I suggest redirecting this page to Socialism in New Zealand and adding a bit more info on the group to that page. That way, anyone who wants to know about them can. --Helenalex (talk) 23:38, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Do you really believe that we can fit all this information in another article? Or do you believe that some information contained in there is unnecessary? For me the fact that this party followed the CP of China and after Mao's death is very important. From a political point of view, it's very interesting to know how the international developments affect the creation of political parties around the world. In Greece, we have 5 Maoist organisations and the creation of each one reflects a different significant hisorical event (death of Mao, end of realtions between China-Albania, etc.). In new Zealand, it's very interesting to know the ideological differences between two maoist parties, OMU which established between Mao's death and Communist Party of Aotearoa which originates from the ex-Hoxhaist Communist Party of New Zealand. -- Magioladitis (talk) 21:28, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment IMO, the only necessary information is: original name, reason for split, new name, publication, all of which could easily fit into an umbrella article, especially if it was in note form. I think you may be over estimating the significance of this party based on Greek history. Although communist parties played a major role in 20th century Greece, the same is not true of New Zealand. We're talking about a party which never had any member elected anywhere (not even local councils), never received a significant share of the vote in any election, and which most New Zealanders would never have heard of. I think the info on the post-Mao split is much more significant when placed in the context of an umbrella article - it does not justify this article. --Helenalex (talk) 09:18, 25 February 2008 (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.