Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Revolutionary Socialist Party (Australia)


 * 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. Although at an editorial level, I would agree with Mkativerata and would have ivoted similarly, while closing this AfD, I do not see consensus being clear. At the same time, should this decision be perceived to be wrong, kindly do contact me on my talk page. There is no prejudice against opening up an early AfD on this article in the near future in case the article is not improved.   Wifione    .......  Leave a message  11:50, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Revolutionary Socialist Party (Australia)

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

A never-registered ultra-minor splinter of a very minor party. Gained some limited coverage because of Rudd's nephew standing, but the entire reference list is composed of party press releases and one article in an Indian magazine. Frickeg (talk) 03:36, 23 September 2010 (UTC)  Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions.  —Frickeg (talk) 03:37, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:02, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:02, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - The lowest of all possible bars should be placed for political parties, leaders of political parties, and their youth sections. If it exists, it should be covered in Wikipedia on the basis of per se notability, in my estimation. Not all political parties run candidates for office, I add. Carrite (talk) 18:20, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete I'm not seeing significant coverage in reliable sources of the party, as opposed to V Rudd. I appreciate Carrite's argument but it just isn't accepted by the community. --Mkativerata (talk) 04:17, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Keep - Per Carrite, and as a matter of historical record. SteveStrummer (talk) 06:15, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Merge into Van Thanh Rudd, or delete. Mr. Rudd is the only reason this splinter of a splinter group is in any way notable.  It's not even clear that the external sources are really independent of the group, though further digging by someone with more stomach for petty Trotskyist sectarianism may prove otherwise. Argyriou (talk) 17:43, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep per Carrite's argument. Article is sourced and covers more than just V. Rudd.--Arxiloxos (talk) 14:32, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment. While I respect Carrite's argument, it is in complete contravention of Wikipedia's notability guidelines. This party has zero coverage in reliable, independent sources that is not directly related to V. Rudd. Carrite's argument is one to be raised in relation to changing the guidelines, but can hardly be used in an AfD that is supposed to be decided based on the guidelines. Frickeg (talk) 22:56, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, my understanding of Wikipedia's theoretical construct is that guidelines change in accordance with the evolution of practice. —Carrite, Oct. 7, 2010.
 * Anticipating objections, this is what I'm on about: An accepted policy or guideline may become obsolete because of changes in editorial practice or community standards, may become redundant because of improvements to other pages, or may represent unwarranted instruction creep. * *  * Policies and guidelines aim to describe community norms. When a norm changes there is usually a specific discussion. However when the way it works in practice as seen by experienced users is poorly described, the policy is often updated to reflect it better. (from Policies and guidelines. —Carrite, Oct. 7, 2010.

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,   Wifione    .......  Leave a message  08:18, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion as the current discussions do not seem to have reached a consensus stage.


 * Merge to the artist Rudd's article. The sources I looked at are either self-published, or legally obliged to take notice of the party's existence, or sources that are only tangentially related to the subject (a story about X that mentions the name of the party in passing).  Wikipedia is not here to "document history", and I'm very nervous about basing an article about a political party on sources that do nothing more than name the organization.  For example, I saw nothing in the sources that indicated that anything in the ==Campaigns== section was an official action of the organization, rather than a private action that happened to involve two members.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:56, 13 October 2010 (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.