Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Progressive Youth of Poland


 * 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. Regardless of the extent to which notability may be subjective or waiveable, verifiability is not, and no one could present any references independent of the organization's own website. postdlf (talk) 02:46, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Progressive Youth of Poland

 * – ( View AfD View log )

No sources are provided to establish notability of this youth organization. An external link verifies their existence, but no evidence is provided for notability. A search in news and scholarly sources in both English and Polish produced no results. Unless multiple, independent sources can be found that discuss this subject in detail, it should be deleted per WP:N. Note that this may be the same organization as Communist Youth of Poland, which is also undergoing an AfD at the moment; relevant discussion can be found at Articles for deletion/Communist Youth of Poland. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:51, 4 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep - First: I favor the lowest of all possible bars for inclusion of political parties and their youth sections. There are lots of things to slice from an encyclopedia based upon "notability" concerns, but coverage of political organizations — left, right, and center ideologically — should not be one of them. Second: Poland being a former Communist country, the new communist political organizations emerging in their aftermath are likely to be of academic interest. Even if this were nothing more than a stub article that Progressive Youth of Poland is an independent communist political organization based in XXX, with an estimated XXX members. It is an affiliate of the World Federation of Democratic Youth, that would be important, valid, worthwhile encyclopedic content. There comes a time to put aside notability doctrine and to WP:IAR (Use Common Sense). Third: The fact that this group claims adherence to the WFDY (the equivalent of the old Communist International of Youth in the cold war period) is an indicator that this may well be a significant group, as opposed to a microscopic sect. I don't know, I'm not an expert on current politics in Eastern Europe, but this should be regarded as a "yellow flag" that deletion should not be rushed here. I see no pressing reason why this page should be deleted. I favored redirection of Communist Youth of Poland to this article in an AfD yesterday. This one should be kept, in my opinion. Carrite (talk) 17:55, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Apologies, but WP:N is core policy, and not lightly set aside. Furthermore, the article now and even the stub-sentence you suggest would violate WP:V, because we have no way of verifying it.  Anyone can create a website that claims to be about a group with hundreds or thousands of members, and claim to be part of a larger organization, and none of it may be true.  The whole point of both WP:N and WP:V is that they make it so that we don't have to guess or make subjective decisions about what may or may not be encyclopedic content.  Otherwise, it just comes down to "your word versus mine", where you insist its notable, and I say it isn't.  I cannot see any justification in allowing an article about an organization to exist without some independent evidence that this organization has some form of notability. Qwyrxian (talk) 21:29, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * "your word versus mine"? In which dimension do you normally edit Wikipedia? It's always that way, especially when N is fundamentally subjective, and RS is inherently subjective or can be assessed subjectively: "multiple", "independent", "reliable", "third-party", "published" sources "with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". About the only word in that that isn't is "sources", and I am sure someone can think up a dubious definition of that, too, and get enough people to agree with them to make it policy, by virtue of the subjectively valued supremacy of the majority delineated by the WP rule of "consensus". I may go along with it, but I don't pretend it is some fundamental law of the universe. It's just a way of trimming down the encyclopedia, and for what reason is a little unclear, because WP is not paper. What I believe Carrite is saying is we don't need to and shouldn't trim this one. Anarchangel (talk) 03:26, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I totally agree with the above that there is an enormous amount of subjectivity in the application of Wikipedia inclusion criteria. What gets challenged to AfD and why? These things are not random. There is a certain amount of reason and rationality used by editors in deciding to challenge this or to leave that alone. Not every article is subjected to a certain set of holy and immutable Notability Rules delivered from the mountaintop by Moses. Things are considered, contemplated, pondered, and sussed out. Here's my view, and it's not made "lightly" — topics of substance, things that should be in an encyclopedia, should not be lopped off lightly. If there is anything commercially-intended or vanity driven or trivial — by all means, hold that to rigid standards of inclusion-worthiness. But if something belongs in an encyclopedia, like, for instance, information about political parties or their youth sections — then tread very lightly indeed. This is a weak, faintly sourced, stub article as it sits. There may come a day when it is fleshed out. Or not. But even the content here has worth and should not be disposed due to its alleged failure to meet muster to "guidelines." Carrite (talk) 19:16, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I add: I don't dispute the good intent of the person making this particular challenge. AfD in general has a certain "shape" to it... There are certain hot button type of articles that get challenged for this reason or that; other types of articles are ignored. I just want to make it clear that I don't feel that this particular challenge is tendentious, only ill-advised. Carrite (talk) 19:20, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree that topics of substance should be in an encyclopedia. The way we demonstrate that an article is a topic of substance is by showing that it has been the subject of significant discussion in multiple, independent, reliable sources. If you (or anyone else) can do that, then the article should be kept.  Otherwise, why should I or anyone else believe this "belongs" or is a noteworthy subject?  Does the mere fact of someone having a website claiming to be a political party or youth movement automatically generate some form of notability?  You say it's "faintly sourced," but, in fact, it doesn't have even a single source other than its own website.  Anyone at all can make a website claiming to be a notable political party; this does not inherently make that group notable enough for inclusion. Not that it matters much, but the only reason I found this page was because an editor made an "edit semiprotected" request on [Communist Youth of Poland), which is a category I regularly look at to help non-autoconfirmed editors make changes to semi-protected pages.  After looking at the page for a few days, doing my due dilligence and searching for reliable sources, I believed that the article did not meet the general notability guidelines.  There was no malice, this wasn't a particular hot-button issue for me; it was just an article I found basically by chance that did not meet guidelines, that I attempted and was unable to make it meet the guidelines, and thus I nominated it for deletion.  Qwyrxian (talk) 23:29, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:48, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:11, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:12, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:12, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
 * note merge with other article. Notability is not sacrificed here for common sense. --Zangvill (talk) 03:12, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Very weak keep. Google search for "Postępowa Młodzież Polski" gives 40k hits. No hits on Google Print... --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 21:57, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete I can't find anything in searches to satisfy WP:N, WP:GNG or WP:ORG. I even looked up "Postępowa Młodzież Polski" and saw about 39k hits but with a lot of organizational listings and MySpace. The engine split up the words in a Google News search although I put them in quotes. This may have happened in the basic search as well. If the group is a World Federation of Democratic Youth member, it can be listed here. I understand the philosophy argument given above about notability but I think we need to stick to the core WP policies in this case. Not every political group or organization rates a standalone article.--NortyNort (Holla) 05:03, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Comment. I have a lot of sympathy for Carrite's position that articles about political entities, of any significance at all, should be given all the leeway possible to allow them to remain in the encyclopedia.  I'd also note that WP:N is a guideline, not a policy. On the other hand WP:V is a policy, and we do need to find some sort of reasonable verification that this organization really exists and is what the article says it is.  Digging into the organization's website, I noted a rather interesting entry, on the organization's FAQ page, which begins, in unreliable Google translation, as follows:


 * What would be the definition of PMP in Wikipedia?


 * Unfortunately, the Polish version of Wikipedia is dominated by supporters of neo-liberalism and the extreme right, which is why the entry relating to the PMP is regularly removed. This shows that more explicitly about censorship prevailing in the popular Polish-language website. Despite this, we can give you a definition of PMP below:


 * Progressive Youth of Poland (PMP) - Leftist unregistered youth organization operating in the Polish Republic. It is a youth organization, independent of political parties. PMP is the result of transformation of the Communist Youth of Poland into Progressive Youth of Poland in May 2009. The emergence of the KMP [(Communist Youth of Poland) - clarification by translator] and the beginning of its operation date back to November 1996 in the Sudety mountains.


 * I don't know what to make of this, but someone more versed in contemporary Polish affairs may have a better idea, so I thought it ought to be noted.--Arxiloxos (talk) 04:57, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I've corrected the machine translation above as far as to make the meaning clear, without worrying about minor grammatical errors. I hope Arxiloxos is OK with that - if not then please revert. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:28, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much for the clarifications: I was wondering in particular what they meant by the "password" disappearing. I could have sworn I posted this thank you yesterday; must have forgotten to press "save". --Arxiloxos (talk) 15:19, 14 March 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.