Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Party of Communists USA (2nd nomination)


 * 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 delete.  Sandstein  16:41, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Party of Communists USA
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log )

I find no evidence that this party has attracted any note in independent reliable sources as required by WP:GNG. Most of the sources in the article are affiliated. One source, an article in The [Vermont] Eagle, is independent and presumably reliable, but it mentions the party only in passing while discussing a candidate belonging to it. My own online search turns up nothing that helps: social media, blogs, and material presented by the party itself or its members. Largoplazo (talk) 22:09, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Postscript: Google News turns up fewer than 10 matches after I excluded dozens of hits from one blog. These are possibly independent reliable sources. But they're all passing mentions, mostly just to mention a particular person's affiliation. Largoplazo (talk) 22:16, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Largoplazo (talk) 22:09, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Largoplazo (talk) 22:09, 1 October 2020 (UTC)


 * I agree that the party is not that well known. However they are active, have an offline presence and participate in the international communist movement. They field candidates for public office. What else does a party need to do to be noteworthy? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 22:25, 1 October 2020 (talk • contribs) vjr300 (UTC)
 * See the information page on notability, particularly the general notability guidelines. Wikipedia's use of the term "notable" is peculiar: it isn't about our own assessment of whether a topic is noteworthy, but whether pertinent independent and reliable sources have demonstrated their own sense that it is through coverage, recognition, etc. Largoplazo (talk) 23:59, 1 October 2020 (UTC)


 * The fact that any independent articles exist is reason enough to not delete this article. There is no denying that the party exists. At worst, it would make sense to mark it a stub of some kind, but it seems unreasonable to suggest deletion because they are small. kevinkapon (talk) 8:02, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
 * My deletion nomination mentions neither its size (which, indeed, is irrelevant to qualifying for inclusion) nor doubt as to its existence (though mere existence doesn't suffice to qualify a subject for inclusion). As I said, the issue is that I don't believe the party meets Wikipedia's notability criteria for inclusion. Largoplazo (talk) 12:00, 2 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete: Sources in the article do not meet RS, IS, showing SIGCOV. BEFORE showed nothing that meets RS, IS, showing SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth.   // Timothy ::  talk  02:39, 3 October 2020 (UTC)


 * I disagree that, besides all the practical arguments, the party also fulfills the formal wikipedia rules on general notabillity:
 * "Significant coverage": The congressional candidacy has greatly increased attention to both the party and the candidate. The party is also mentioned in some dept in the Epoch Times. I will add more sources to the article to reflect this.
 * "Reliable": Both the Vermont Eagle, and the Epoch Times, and the different mentions of support from the international communist community should be considered as reliable sources.
 * "Independent": See "Significant coverage", I agree that previously the party did not generate alot of attention, however this has changed recently. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 13:02, 3 October 2020‎ (talk • contribs) Vjr300 (UTC)


 * If you want to convince people who aren't finding such coverage that such coverage exists, you'll need to identify it. As I already noted, nearly all the mentions in the sources that might be considered both independent and reliable are exactly that, mentions, not significant coverage. For example, "The Party of Communists USA (PCUSA) is fielding a candidate for Vermont's at-large congressional district in 2020, ..."(Vermont Eagle) followed by 14 or so paragraphs about the candidate with no further mention of the party is a mention in passing, not significant coverage, of the party. The Epoch Times article you cited in the article is better, with three paragraphs, but the general topic is a list of socialist parties in the US, and it's just one of a dozen listed. And, even then, that's only one source. Largoplazo (talk) 13:44, 3 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete - The article does not establish organizational notability. This article has been created in both draft space and article space.  I am wary of articles that are created in both draft space and article space.  The reason for doing this is too often to make it impossible to move a questionable article into draft space and so force an AFD.  The originator has provided no alternative to deletion. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:37, 7 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Side note: articles shouldn't be moved to draft space on account of a lack of notability. Draftifying is for the purpose of keeping the content of a drafted article in place so it can be improved. But articles can't be improved into notability, as a notability finding is based on factors outside Wikipedia. Therefore, it's unfair to give an article's creator the false hope that working further on the article will overcome notability-based objection. Largoplazo (talk) 11:31, 7 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:NPOL, WP:SOAP, WP:SIGCOV, and WP:MILL - allegedly, a very small cadre that broke away from a very minor party. We are not a soap box nor Ballotpedia, and in 2020, everybody know that. Bearian (talk) 16:11, 9 October 2020 (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.