The result was delete. Fails WP:GNG. Nothing presented by the keeps, nor any sourcing in this debate, convinces me that this subject merits inclusion at this time.
Thanks everyone for participating and if you disagree with this decision please take it to Wikipedia:Deletion review - unless there is a tech issue. Thanks for assuming good faith and happy holidays! Missvain ( talk) 17:42, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
![]() | If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is
not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has
policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and
consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:{{subst:
spa|username}} ; suspected
canvassed users: {{subst:
canvassed|username}} ; accounts blocked for
sockpuppetry: {{subst:
csm|username}} or {{subst:
csp|username}} . |
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
This article concerns a tiny political party, for which the only sources given are outlets directly affiliated with the party and two personal blogs. Searching for additional information, I was only able to find the party's official website, a facebook page with around 4,200 followers, a twitter account with 1497 followers, a student newspaper article from 2016 and a few mentions of the wikipedia article itself. Other than that, nothing.
It appears that the overwhelming majority of attention to this party comes from the wikipedia article itself rather than any actions taken by the party, with the page receiving an average of 2330 monthly pageviews in the past year
In light of all of this, I do not believe this meets notability guidelines.
Thereppy ( talk) 23:47, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
{{
reply to|Chess}}
on reply)
23:30, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: More discussion or finding of sources. Thereppy makes a good rebuttal of the sources, which have not been answered.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Natg 19 (
talk)
00:31, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Daniel (
talk)
06:16, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
{{
reply to|Chess}}
on reply)
23:48, 14 December 2021 (UTC){{
reply to|Chess}}
on reply)
17:06, 15 December 2021 (UTC){{
reply to|Chess}}
on reply)
19:24, 15 December 2021 (UTC){{
reply to|Chess}}
on reply)
22:32, 15 December 2021 (UTC){{
reply to|Chess}}
on reply)
04:04, 16 December 2021 (UTC){{
reply to|Chess}}
on reply)
21:49, 15 December 2021 (UTC)The daily Targum article clearly fits the criteria of " significant coverage in a reliable secondary source that is independent of the subject. "
{{
reply to|Chess}}
In regard specifically to the daily Targum article; Significant: The entire article is about an event organized and operated by the American Party of Labor and its student wing. It is clearly significant coverage.
Reliable: The daily Targum has won the Columbia Scholastic Press Association's Gold Crown Award multiple times, it established a separate publishing company to ensure independent coverage from Rutgers. It also has its own wikipedia page. If ever a student newspaper is reliable it is now.
Secondary: While there are brief snippets and direct quotes from members, the author reports on the protest as well as giving additional context with regards to the Dakota Access pipeline in general as well as other protests regarding the pipeline. This is a secondary source with regards to the Party
Independent: The daily Targum has no association with the American party of labor nor does the author as far as I can tell. There is no reason to believe this journalism isn't independent of the American Party of Labor. AxderWraith Crimson ( talk) 03:02, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
{{
reply to|Chess}}
on reply)
03:10, 16 December 2021 (UTC)Source assessment table: prepared by
User:Chess
| ||||
Source | Independent? | Reliable? | Significant coverage? | Count source toward GNG? |
---|---|---|---|---|
Our history | ![]() |
~ A WP:Self published source, but affiliated with the party and so may qualify under WP:ABOUTSELF | ![]() |
✘ No |
"American Party of Labor (U.S.)" | ![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
✘ No |
"Here in the very belly of imperialism, you have comrades:' Alfonso Casal, National Spokesperson for the American Party of Labor, spoke to Evrensel about the APL and the U.S. policies" | ![]() |
? Unsure of the reliability of Evrensel | ![]() |
✘ No |
The American Party of Labor Has Been Granted Observer Status in the International Conference of Marxist-Leninist Parties and Organizations | ![]() |
~ See WP:ABOUTSELF | ![]() |
✘ No |
"Chicago protesters say ‘No’ to Greek fascists" | ![]() |
? Highly biased source from within the movement | ![]() |
✘ No |
"Chicago forum on U.S. role in Ukraine: fascists attempt disruption" | ![]() |
? Highly biased source from within the movement | ![]() |
✘ No |
"Support grows for “Dump Trump” protest planned for day one of Republican National Convention" | ![]() |
? Highly biased source from within the movement | ![]() |
✘ No |
"Communist group at Rutgers protests Standing Rock with Brower rally" | ![]() |
? Student newspaper | ![]() |
✘ No
|
"[PARTIDO ESTADOUNIDENSE DEL TRABAJO] El ascenso del neofascismo americano: Apuntes sobre la presidencia de Donald Trump." | ? Unclear why "Partido Estadounidense del Trabajo" (which means "American Party of Labor") is bracketed. Perhaps the author is saying that is the source for the post? Site is the official blog of the Marxist–Leninist Communist Party of Ecuador, see: [6] That party belongs to the same umbrella org ( ICMLPO (US) as the APL. | ![]() |
![]() |
✘ No |
"[PARTIDO ESTADOUNIDENSE DEL TRABAJO] El legado de Karl Marx en la revitalización del movimiento obrero estadounidense" | ? Unclear why "Partido Estadounidense del Trabajo" (which means "American Party of Labor") is bracketed. Same issue as previous source. Appears to be the same self published blog as the previous and has the same issues of affiliation | ![]() |
? Dead link | ✘ No |
"Revolution is the Solution: Presentation of the American Party of Labor to the 23rd Seminar on the Problems of the Revolution in Latin America" | ![]() |
~ Possibly under WP:ABOUTSELF | ![]() |
✘ No |
"Booker on Blast: Hands Off Venezuela" | ![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
✘ No |
https://naarpr.org/updates/call-to-refound/ "Call to Refound the National Alliance Against Racist and Political Repression"] | ~ Petition signed by the APL | ![]() |
value not understood The extent of the sources coverage of the APL is that the APL signed this petition. | ✘ No |
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{ source assess table}}. |
{{
reply to|Chess}}
on reply)
03:40, 20 December 2021 (UTC){{
reply to|Chess}}
on reply)
17:30, 20 December 2021 (UTC){{
reply to|Chess}}
on reply)
19:35, 20 December 2021 (UTC)The result was delete. Fails WP:GNG. Nothing presented by the keeps, nor any sourcing in this debate, convinces me that this subject merits inclusion at this time.
Thanks everyone for participating and if you disagree with this decision please take it to Wikipedia:Deletion review - unless there is a tech issue. Thanks for assuming good faith and happy holidays! Missvain ( talk) 17:42, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
![]() | If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is
not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has
policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and
consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:{{subst:
spa|username}} ; suspected
canvassed users: {{subst:
canvassed|username}} ; accounts blocked for
sockpuppetry: {{subst:
csm|username}} or {{subst:
csp|username}} . |
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
This article concerns a tiny political party, for which the only sources given are outlets directly affiliated with the party and two personal blogs. Searching for additional information, I was only able to find the party's official website, a facebook page with around 4,200 followers, a twitter account with 1497 followers, a student newspaper article from 2016 and a few mentions of the wikipedia article itself. Other than that, nothing.
It appears that the overwhelming majority of attention to this party comes from the wikipedia article itself rather than any actions taken by the party, with the page receiving an average of 2330 monthly pageviews in the past year
In light of all of this, I do not believe this meets notability guidelines.
Thereppy ( talk) 23:47, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
{{
reply to|Chess}}
on reply)
23:30, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: More discussion or finding of sources. Thereppy makes a good rebuttal of the sources, which have not been answered.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Natg 19 (
talk)
00:31, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Daniel (
talk)
06:16, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
{{
reply to|Chess}}
on reply)
23:48, 14 December 2021 (UTC){{
reply to|Chess}}
on reply)
17:06, 15 December 2021 (UTC){{
reply to|Chess}}
on reply)
19:24, 15 December 2021 (UTC){{
reply to|Chess}}
on reply)
22:32, 15 December 2021 (UTC){{
reply to|Chess}}
on reply)
04:04, 16 December 2021 (UTC){{
reply to|Chess}}
on reply)
21:49, 15 December 2021 (UTC)The daily Targum article clearly fits the criteria of " significant coverage in a reliable secondary source that is independent of the subject. "
{{
reply to|Chess}}
In regard specifically to the daily Targum article; Significant: The entire article is about an event organized and operated by the American Party of Labor and its student wing. It is clearly significant coverage.
Reliable: The daily Targum has won the Columbia Scholastic Press Association's Gold Crown Award multiple times, it established a separate publishing company to ensure independent coverage from Rutgers. It also has its own wikipedia page. If ever a student newspaper is reliable it is now.
Secondary: While there are brief snippets and direct quotes from members, the author reports on the protest as well as giving additional context with regards to the Dakota Access pipeline in general as well as other protests regarding the pipeline. This is a secondary source with regards to the Party
Independent: The daily Targum has no association with the American party of labor nor does the author as far as I can tell. There is no reason to believe this journalism isn't independent of the American Party of Labor. AxderWraith Crimson ( talk) 03:02, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
{{
reply to|Chess}}
on reply)
03:10, 16 December 2021 (UTC)Source assessment table: prepared by
User:Chess
| ||||
Source | Independent? | Reliable? | Significant coverage? | Count source toward GNG? |
---|---|---|---|---|
Our history | ![]() |
~ A WP:Self published source, but affiliated with the party and so may qualify under WP:ABOUTSELF | ![]() |
✘ No |
"American Party of Labor (U.S.)" | ![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
✘ No |
"Here in the very belly of imperialism, you have comrades:' Alfonso Casal, National Spokesperson for the American Party of Labor, spoke to Evrensel about the APL and the U.S. policies" | ![]() |
? Unsure of the reliability of Evrensel | ![]() |
✘ No |
The American Party of Labor Has Been Granted Observer Status in the International Conference of Marxist-Leninist Parties and Organizations | ![]() |
~ See WP:ABOUTSELF | ![]() |
✘ No |
"Chicago protesters say ‘No’ to Greek fascists" | ![]() |
? Highly biased source from within the movement | ![]() |
✘ No |
"Chicago forum on U.S. role in Ukraine: fascists attempt disruption" | ![]() |
? Highly biased source from within the movement | ![]() |
✘ No |
"Support grows for “Dump Trump” protest planned for day one of Republican National Convention" | ![]() |
? Highly biased source from within the movement | ![]() |
✘ No |
"Communist group at Rutgers protests Standing Rock with Brower rally" | ![]() |
? Student newspaper | ![]() |
✘ No
|
"[PARTIDO ESTADOUNIDENSE DEL TRABAJO] El ascenso del neofascismo americano: Apuntes sobre la presidencia de Donald Trump." | ? Unclear why "Partido Estadounidense del Trabajo" (which means "American Party of Labor") is bracketed. Perhaps the author is saying that is the source for the post? Site is the official blog of the Marxist–Leninist Communist Party of Ecuador, see: [6] That party belongs to the same umbrella org ( ICMLPO (US) as the APL. | ![]() |
![]() |
✘ No |
"[PARTIDO ESTADOUNIDENSE DEL TRABAJO] El legado de Karl Marx en la revitalización del movimiento obrero estadounidense" | ? Unclear why "Partido Estadounidense del Trabajo" (which means "American Party of Labor") is bracketed. Same issue as previous source. Appears to be the same self published blog as the previous and has the same issues of affiliation | ![]() |
? Dead link | ✘ No |
"Revolution is the Solution: Presentation of the American Party of Labor to the 23rd Seminar on the Problems of the Revolution in Latin America" | ![]() |
~ Possibly under WP:ABOUTSELF | ![]() |
✘ No |
"Booker on Blast: Hands Off Venezuela" | ![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
✘ No |
https://naarpr.org/updates/call-to-refound/ "Call to Refound the National Alliance Against Racist and Political Repression"] | ~ Petition signed by the APL | ![]() |
value not understood The extent of the sources coverage of the APL is that the APL signed this petition. | ✘ No |
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{ source assess table}}. |
{{
reply to|Chess}}
on reply)
03:40, 20 December 2021 (UTC){{
reply to|Chess}}
on reply)
17:30, 20 December 2021 (UTC){{
reply to|Chess}}
on reply)
19:35, 20 December 2021 (UTC)