Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Party of Labour (Serbia)


 * 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. --BDD (talk) 19:26, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Party of Labour (Serbia)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Not notable "illegal" political party with no media coverage whatsoever and no sources except the official website.  Alex discussion ★ 14:24, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep, this is a party from the early 1990s, which always moved in the peripheries of Serbian politics in last 20 years. PR is interesting for its position on the national question, one of few Serbian voices that went 180 degrees in opposition to the predominant line on Kosovo, see http://www.mltranslations.org/Yugoslavia/pr11.htm . PR is discussed in Party Politics in the Western Balkans, p. 27. is an account from 1995. Another account on the party, . --Soman (talk) 15:30, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Sources you've provided are not reliable, or at least they are strongly related to the entity. And this source is only a passing mention, that's not in accordance with the GN guideline.  Alex discussion ★ 21:16, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep - First off, let me say what I always say: I favor the lowest possible barriers for inclusion of articles on political parties, their leaders, and their youth sections without respect to size or ideology. This is material that SHOULD be in a comprehensive encyclopedia. Moreover, there is coverage out there, such as DISCUSSION in Party Politics in the Western Balkans, edited by Vera Stojarová and Peter Emerson and published by Routledge. Carrite (talk) 21:56, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm must point out here that I don't agree with you. Wikipedia has to have political parties that exceed some kind of threshold of significance, so that only really important organisations are included to Wikipedia. Sources you've provided is not a discussion, but only a passing mention.  Alex discussion ★ 21:16, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
 * This is news to me. Show me one single diff where I "openly advocate communism." Take your time. Then I will thank you for retracting this personal attack, which is what a nefarious form of ad hominem attack that we call "red baiting" in the United States. Carrite (talk) 21:19, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but this wasn't a personal attack. Take a good look at your user page. What about the Communist Internationale photo yours there? I'm not from the United States, and people from place where I live don't find this as "ad hominem" attack. I don't see why would being a communist be a bad thing? Only if you find it as such. Anyway, I only intended to show that you may be some how related to the subject of the article.  Alex discussion ★ 21:26, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Here are your choices: (1) you will provide a diff on OR OFF Wiki at which I "openly advocate Communism." Or (2) you will retract the red-baiting, ad hominem attack you made upon me above. Or (3) you will find yourself at Administrators Noticeboard/Incidents over this. Take as much time as you'd like to explore option 1 before exercising option 2 to avoid option 3. Carrite (talk) 21:32, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I've fixed my wording above. Is it OK for you now? I don't mind if you report me, and you have my approval if you do so. I have provided diffs for you in my reply.  Alex discussion ★ 21:39, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
 * That's only a little better. Now it would be sort of like me saying that a nomination or an argument should be disregarded because the person making it "might be closely related to Balkan nationalism" or some such. It's still a completely bullshit way to discuss the topic of notability. Carrite (talk) 21:46, 25 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:57, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:57, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:57, 20 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete. Having lived through the period, in Serbia, I've never heard of them, and I can assure you there were hundreds of political parties with at least marginal media coverage in 1990s. This one has none, possibly due to the Great World Conspiracy, and a passing mention in a book about far left doth not constitute notability. They failed to leave any mark in the history, ergo they should rest in peace. Even the yogi flyers party fared better than them. No such user (talk) 22:18, 20 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete. Not listed in the registry of political parties in Serbia, meaning it is either defunct or illegal. No evidence of past electoral participation since its inception. I don't see anything particularly encyclopedic here. Buttons (talk) 00:07, 23 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Being either defunct or illegal is no barrier to inclusion. Carrite (talk) 21:23, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
 * No, but it is a factor in determining notability. Is it legally active? No. Has it participated in any election? No. What notable contribution(s) has it made? None. Buttons (talk) 22:15, 25 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northamerica1000(talk) 23:49, 26 January 2014 (UTC)




 * Keep Being defunct or illegal is not an argument against notability. WP is an encyclopedia, and covers whatever was important. A party important in the past may have no current political significance, but it retains historical significance indefinitely. A party being illegal does not in the least impair notability--such parties can be as notable as any legal part, and sometimes more so. &#39;DGG (at NYPL)&#39; (talk) 21:04, 27 January 2014 (UTC)


 * True, except this party has no historical significance past or present. None that anyone here for a keep has been able to prove anyway. Buttons (talk) 02:37, 1 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment Here are some articles about PR. CATEGORY ARCHIVES: PARTY OF LABOUR (PARTIJA RADA)--Pacovdlak (talk) 23:15, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
 * My opinion is that Espresso Stalinist is not recognised as a reliable source. It's highly biased thought publisher.  Alex discussion ★ 22:15, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 15:13, 3 February 2014 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.