Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Realist Left


 * 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  19:21, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Realist Left

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

In its current form, this is a manifesto, not a Wikipedia article, and seems like the group has a goal of creating a Wikipedia entry (see here). An article on a group can't rely on primary sources or original research, it has to draw from third-party sources that describe the movement. This article doesn't have any of those, and a search on Google shows that none exist. I'm sorry to say, but at the moment, this group does not seem to be notable enough (meaning it is not written about in enough reliable, third-party sources) for inclusion here. Owlsmcgee (talk) 08:25, 12 December 2017 (UTC) A Google search for "realist left" yields 2,840 results (is that "none"?), including the following third-party sources: So why the hurry? Got a pony in this race? Wisdomtooth32 (talk) 09:23, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete - Truly a political manifesto by a group that can barely be verified, let alone covered by secondary sources. If possible, I would speedily delete this page as propaganda and WP:OR at its worst.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 08:46, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
 * http://www.euractiv.com/section/elections/news/hamons-victory-confirms-corbynisation-of-french-left/
 * https://www.whaleoil.co.nz/2016/12/introducing-alt-left/
 * http://mikenormaneconomics.blogspot.com/2016/09/lord-keynes-wikipedia-entry-for-realist.html
 * http://heavyangloorthodox.blogspot.com/2016/09/a-realist-left-primer.html
 * https://robertlindsay.wordpress.com/2017/01/07/realist-left-replies-to-robert-lindsay/
 * https://thealternativeleft.blogspot.com/2016/09/sub-types-on-alternative-left.html
 * https://attackthesystem.com/2016/09/26/the-various-factions-types-or-wings-of-the-alt-left/
 * I do not have a pony in this race. Just for reference, since you have asked twice "why the hurry," I'll tell you: I'm a page reviewer, so I have a tool that loads pages that are new, and part of the task is to assess whether it fits criteria for notability, and to leave suggestions on how to improve it. If you wanted to take more time to create this article with improved sourcing, the place to do it is your sandbox, and then you could move it to a proper article once it was in shape. I moved quickly because that's what we're supposed to do. We try to keep Wikipedia reliable, rather than leaving articles around, waiting for them to become reliable. So, no, this is nothing personal, I have no interest in or knowledge about this topic whatsoever, I just happened across the page as part of my nightly round of page patrolling, and saw it lacked reliable references. I then Googled the term and found that no reliable third party references existed - including those that you posted above, which are not reliable. You can check out this link to see what Wikipedia considers reliable. Anyway, you've been casting aspersions on me, so I'm not going to engage further. I just thought I'd explain how we got here in the hopes that it gives you some context for why the article was flagged, rather than assuming I had some personal vendetta against you. -- Owlsmcgee (talk) 03:07, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
 * The barrage of accusations for wanting to contribute with Wikipedia came against me first. I am just surprised — and quite honestly flabbergasted — by the level of aggressiveness. I did put a notice up saying it was under construction. Doesn't it say that "the creator asks that for a short time this page not be edited unnecessarily, or nominated for deletion during this early stage of development"? How about allowing people to work on the content before jumping the gun so hastily?
 * I then Googled the term and found that no reliable third party references existed - including those that you posted above, which are not reliable.
 * EURACTIV is not a "reliable source"? — Wisdomtooth32 (talk) 04:27, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
 * The EURACTIV story you linked to doesn't contain enough information on the term "realist left" to justify an article, no. Please stop being so defensive. If you want more time to work on this article, I have already outlined how to do that: move it to your sandbox, develop it with your sources, and then move it into an article when you think it is ready. However, the article, as it stands now, is not suitable for Wikipedia and is not supported by the references you are using. As I said, at the moment, I can't see any that exist, which is why I flagged it for deletion despite the under construction banner. The article is not being built the way a Wikipedia article needs to be, lacks sources, and cited sources that may be influential to the movement, but do not show that the movement is notable. If you know of any reliable, third-party sources that have described the movement in detail, you are more than welcome to share them to support your claim that the article should exist. I'm afraid the ones you provided above aren't really passing muster. For notability, you will need more than an uncredited quotation in a EURACTIV article (this is what Wikipedia would define as a "trivial mention," see the policy on Notability.) You would need a few articles, from reliable sources, written about the movement to establish notability (this is not a judgement on the movement, it's an assessment of what is being written about it). If you are sincerely interested in contributing to Wikipedia, I encourage you to look into these policies, start this article anew in a sandbox, and perhaps work on some other articles in the meantime. As you say, there's no rush. -- Owlsmcgee (talk) 07:13, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
 * You're doing this all wrong. How about challenging contributors to develop their content up to Wikipedia standard, and if the challenges remain unanswered, then — and only then! — queuing them for deletion? What you're doing is deletionism, pure and simple. And you wonder why I'm being defensive (while being accused of every sort of misdemeanour without even being asked about the content!)… — Wisdomtooth32 (talk) 00:04, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Did you honestly expect to fool anyone with those "third-party sources"? How peculiar: you listed sources about the French Left, alt-left, and blogs advocating for a Wikipedia entry!TheGracefulSlick (talk) 09:37, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
 * you listed sources about the French Left, alt-left
 * The Realist Left is in the Alternative Left, and, from Fourier to Proudhon to Marx to Foucault, much of the Left's history originated in France — what's so "peculiar" about that?? And what am I to "fool" about?? Why do you presume ill intent? — Wisdomtooth32 (talk) 19:28, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! Baby miss  fortune 09:33, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! Baby miss  fortune 09:34, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

So the barrage of accusations continues… I tried to address the criticism by moving it to Draft, and now am accused of being "deceptive". One can't really satisfy the Wikipedia deletion mob, can we? — Wisdomtooth32 (talk) 17:23, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete. The article is a mess and needs a WP:TNT. The definition would be nice, but it is not referenced. The topic may be notable, but there is nothing verifiable that could be salvaged from this mess. Looking at the comment above, it is clear that this needs to be written from scratch by someone who can use academic, not blog, sources. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 10:55, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete Not notable, basically propaganda. Natureium (talk) 15:25, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete Non-notable. PeterTheFourth (talk) 06:54, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete Page is currently a redirect to the same page in draft space. This is deceptive and confusing to readers, who may click on a link and find an article without noticing the change of namespace. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  14:57, 14 December 2017 (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.