Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Revolutionary Communist Youth Brigade


 * 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.  Sandstein  05:40, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Revolutionary Communist Youth Brigade

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Article contains virtually no citations, and none of them are to reliable sources. Any useful information, if properly sorted, can be added to the Revolutionary Communist Party, USA page. Toa Nidhiki05 18:57, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics,  and Illinois.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 18:59, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Revolutionary Communist Party, USA. Cullen328 (talk) 00:01, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
 *  Keep  Weak Keep The article was very weak, but it's really easy to find lots of information on them. I did so and added some. This article needs work, not deletion. CT55555 (talk) 05:33, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
 * None of your additions provide WP:SIGCOV of this group. Your first is literally just a random image you found, your second is a Supreme Court case, and the third is an article about the actions of a few party members, but provides no detail into the organization itself nor any detail beyond the fact that it exists. WP:GNG requires multiple sources providing significant, non-trivial coverage. Toa Nidhiki05 12:34, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I see the truth in your point, most of these are passing mentions, but the first one is front page coverage of their launch/founding in a publication. So respecting the rest are passing mentions, I'm going to downgrade to "weak keep" but I still think more effort could be made to improve this article, and that there is at least one in depth piece of coverage. CT55555 (talk) 18:27, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete Simply existing is not evidence of notability. We need significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. Sources added thus far fall well below that threshold. AusLondonder (talk) 15:27, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep an apparent lack of WP:BEFORE and, worth repeating, the extent of sources added or not added has no bearing on notability. The existence of Texas v Johnson alone is reason enough to keep; the point is that while Johnson himself is notable, the whole reason Johnson (the case) exists is because of the praxis of the RCYB.    ... but beyond that, 2,000+ hits on Newspapers.com over a 30 year period between 1975-2005, some examples: LA Times (1990), The Times (Munster, Indiana) (2001), St Louis Dispatch (1980), Tampa Tribune (1978)


 * Easily passes WP:NONPROFIT. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 02:26, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
 * None of the sources appear to provide in-depth coverage of the group. Some relate to the parent political party and only mention this group in passing. AusLondonder (talk) 15:27, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Like with all orgs, acknowledging existence is not equal to WP:SIGCOV and is not sufficient to establish WP:GNG. Toa Nidhiki05 19:13, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
 * There's independent, reliable source, significant coverage from hundreds of newspapers, I've cited four from across a 20 year period. This is a clear pass of NONPROFIT. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 20:31, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Less Unless (talk) 13:24, 31 March 2022 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗  plicit  14:38, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep per evidence provided by Goldsztajn.--User:Namiba 12:24, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.