Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Workers International League (US)


 * 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. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:07, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Workers International League (US)

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Non-notable organization, the only sources are the organization's own journal, except for one source which doesn't mention the organization. No reliable sources and unlikely to ever have any. Article reads largely like an advertisement for the organization. Vale of Glamorgan (talk) 07:41, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions.  —Tom Morris (talk) 11:10, 28 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete, as per nominator's arguments. Being part of an international umbrella, this organization seems to have more famous national groups elsewhere, but I can't find anything online (apart from the briefest mentions) about the US group. Being entirely self-sourced, this article is effectively free advertising for the WIL. In fact 90% of the article is about the international WIL in general, rather than the US group. Effectively the article has no content! Sionk (talk) 16:07, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete as nominator. Vale of Glamorgan (talk) 19:17, 28 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep - First: most obnoxious sidebar template EVER. Nominate that for deletion if you will. However: I favor the lowest of all possible barriers for political parties, their leaders, and their youth sections at Wikipedia. This is the sort of material that SHOULD be included in encyclopedias. Keep and flesh out. Carrite (talk) 20:36, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment It's not a political party. It's not registered as such and does not run candidates. Appears to be more of a discussion group or club. Vale of Glamorgan (talk) 22:05, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment Political organizations do not need to stand for election to be valid. But it is definitely true that, because there are no independent news about this US organization, we're all left to guess why this article even exists. They have a section in the International Marxist Tendency article and IMO that is probably sufficent for now. Sionk (talk) 22:29, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 00:08, 29 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment Do any of the other articles for International Marxist Tendency sections need to be looked at? Most of them appear to be self-sourced and promotional: Esquerda Marxista, Fightback, FalceMartello, La Riposte, Socialist Appeal, The Struggle. Vale of Glamorgan (talk) 02:14, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * CommentThis article should not be deleted. The WIL is an organisation with branches, full-time workers etc, not just a discussion group. The article should be improved through a better layout, less biased wording, and better references (if they can be found). If articles were removed from wikipedia on the basis that they were biased and poorly referenced, it would be a very empty website! Perhaps, if users are desperate to remove it, it could be renamed as Socialist Appeal (US) and become a page about the WIL's magazine? 91Wikicb (talk) 16:50, 29 February 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91Wikicb (talk • contribs)
 * Comment Looking at your contributions it seems you created the article and that you've almost exclusively edited articles related to the WIL and its parent group, the International Marxist Tendency. If you're a member of the WIL or otherwise associated with it you should probably declare that. Secondly, if an organization has no external reliable sources that can be used as references then it's probably not notable enough to have an article, nevermind the fact that an article can't be very balanced if its only sources are the subject of the article itself. If the WIL becomes significant enough in a few years so that credible references exist outside of the organization (or groups its affiliated with) then it should have an article but until then I really don't see how one is justified. Wikipedia doesn't exist as a promotional vehicle but that's what articles are if they are entirely self-referenced and written by the subjects themselves. Vale of Glamorgan (talk) 22:05, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * As per the reasoning in Carrite's earlier comment, I will happily 'vote' to keep the article if reliable independent references can be found and the article can become more than just a manifesto of the IMT. It is important to know the differences between these left wing groups and, to be frank, good to know that socialists exist in the USA! Sionk (talk) 23:30, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep by longstanding practice, we do keep articles on verifiable splinter parties. The only way to avoid bias here is to be as inclusive as possible.  DGG ( talk ) 05:18, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment the WIL is not a political party, let alone a splinter of one. It does not run candidates and it did not split off of any established US party. Vale of Glamorgan (talk) 17:40, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, B  music  ian  15:19, 6 March 2012 (UTC)




 *  Keep Comment  A few sources:, , , , . These indicate that it's not just a US group, so a page move may be in order. If the subject doesn't meet WP:ORG, the content probably belongs within another article, maybe splitting out International Marxist Tendency. -- Trevj (talk) 14:54, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment those sources have to do with the British Workers' International League (1937) not the subject of this AFD which is Workers' International League (US). Different article, different time period, different country. Vale of Glamorgan (talk) 17:04, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I should've searched here for related articles too! -- Trevj (talk) 18:16, 15 March 2012 (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.