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.
Article contains only three sources, only one of which is independent and does not do anything other than say this group exists. An examination of other top mentions finds that all mentions of this organization are simply acknowledgement that people are members of it or that it exists - no actual detail about it, which means they don’t qualify under
WP:GNG and
WP:SIGCOV. Any useful information can be moved to relevant pages. ToaNidhiki05 19:03, 23 March 2022 (UTC)reply
The NYT article does mention them, although mostly in the context of a legal struggle with members and the Communist Party. Certainly the most comprehensive look I've seen, which isn't saying much. ToaNidhiki05 19:32, 23 March 2022 (UTC)reply
Keep This faction is important in the history of the
CPUSA, and it is surprising, in a sense, that it still exists over 30 years later. The sources discovered by MJL are very good, and
here is another one.
Cullen328 (
talk) 23:51, 23 March 2022 (UTC)reply
Keep please read
WP:BEFORE and remember notability has nothing to do with current content. Sources provided here more than adequate. Regards, --
Goldsztajn (
talk) 09:06, 24 March 2022 (UTC)reply
@
Goldsztajn: In Toa Nidhiki05's defense, I'm pretty sure a
WP:BEFORE happened, but he didn't find the same sources as me because I used different methods. –MJL‐Talk‐☖ 20:01, 24 March 2022 (UTC)reply
BEFORE did happen, and I strongly maintain this organization is not notable. A source mentioning the existence of an organization is in no way proof of its notability; read
WP:GNG and
WP:SIGCOV. ToaNidhiki05 20:09, 24 March 2022 (UTC)reply
Keep per above. Another example of this editor mass nominating articles without doing
WP:BEFORE.--
User:Namiba 17:08, 25 March 2022 (UTC)reply
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.
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.
Article contains only three sources, only one of which is independent and does not do anything other than say this group exists. An examination of other top mentions finds that all mentions of this organization are simply acknowledgement that people are members of it or that it exists - no actual detail about it, which means they don’t qualify under
WP:GNG and
WP:SIGCOV. Any useful information can be moved to relevant pages. ToaNidhiki05 19:03, 23 March 2022 (UTC)reply
The NYT article does mention them, although mostly in the context of a legal struggle with members and the Communist Party. Certainly the most comprehensive look I've seen, which isn't saying much. ToaNidhiki05 19:32, 23 March 2022 (UTC)reply
Keep This faction is important in the history of the
CPUSA, and it is surprising, in a sense, that it still exists over 30 years later. The sources discovered by MJL are very good, and
here is another one.
Cullen328 (
talk) 23:51, 23 March 2022 (UTC)reply
Keep please read
WP:BEFORE and remember notability has nothing to do with current content. Sources provided here more than adequate. Regards, --
Goldsztajn (
talk) 09:06, 24 March 2022 (UTC)reply
@
Goldsztajn: In Toa Nidhiki05's defense, I'm pretty sure a
WP:BEFORE happened, but he didn't find the same sources as me because I used different methods. –MJL‐Talk‐☖ 20:01, 24 March 2022 (UTC)reply
BEFORE did happen, and I strongly maintain this organization is not notable. A source mentioning the existence of an organization is in no way proof of its notability; read
WP:GNG and
WP:SIGCOV. ToaNidhiki05 20:09, 24 March 2022 (UTC)reply
Keep per above. Another example of this editor mass nominating articles without doing
WP:BEFORE.--
User:Namiba 17:08, 25 March 2022 (UTC)reply
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.