The result was keep. A procedural error kept this AfD open for six months, but I don't see any evidence that the extraordinary time span caused any real problems. The biggest issue here is whether WP:CRYSTAL applies; Gzuufy makes a convincing argument why it doesn't. Some argument could be made for calling this No Consensus, but I think both the weight of numbers and the strength of arguments are sufficient to justify calling this Consensus To Keep. -- RoySmith (talk) 21:47, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
I am not convinced that this article should exist. So far, such an International simply does not exist ; it is not even a coherent concept. We just have very different people (most notably Hugo Chavez) who said, in very different times, that it would be nice to have a Fifth International. As long as this International has not been actually and officially created, I don't think we should have a page, besides brief mentions in Hugo Chavez, History of socialism, History of communism, Bolivarian Revolution, Socialism of the 21st century and so on. In its present state, the article is just misleading, since it would lead some to believe that the "Fifth International" has been a defined and coherent concept, while the various people who have used the term "Fifth International" have nothing in common (unless one thinks there is an intimate political connection between Hugo Chavez in 2007 and Lyndon LaRouche in 1965 !). So far, this "Fifth International" is just wishful thinking : while it deserves to be mentioned here and there, wikipedia should not be used to give it substance. Jean-Jacques Georges ( talk) 06:28, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
* Fighting Fifth International, a 1938 proposal by [[POUM]] (Workers' Party of Marxist Unification)
* Fifth International, a 1941 proposal by Argentine Troskyist [[Quebracho]]
PS: This is distinguishable from, e.g., Second Constitutional Convention of the United States, because the "Fifth International" is a different entity created/convened through a different process with different role-players, in different places, toward different ends, in every formulation, while the 2CC is the same idea, to take the same form, in the same place, with the same roles (the legislators then in office), and under the same rules, the only significant difference between the proposals being what they hope the constitution-redrafting process will produce, and based on what values. It's like the difference between trying to have an article about a science fiction TV series that might appear next season on BBC 1, but about which we don't know anything other than general genre, vs. an article on various scripts and drafts and pilots and whatever for an upcoming TV series the basic plot of which is known already, and where only details regarding the differences between the treatments vary. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 23:46, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
The result was keep. A procedural error kept this AfD open for six months, but I don't see any evidence that the extraordinary time span caused any real problems. The biggest issue here is whether WP:CRYSTAL applies; Gzuufy makes a convincing argument why it doesn't. Some argument could be made for calling this No Consensus, but I think both the weight of numbers and the strength of arguments are sufficient to justify calling this Consensus To Keep. -- RoySmith (talk) 21:47, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
I am not convinced that this article should exist. So far, such an International simply does not exist ; it is not even a coherent concept. We just have very different people (most notably Hugo Chavez) who said, in very different times, that it would be nice to have a Fifth International. As long as this International has not been actually and officially created, I don't think we should have a page, besides brief mentions in Hugo Chavez, History of socialism, History of communism, Bolivarian Revolution, Socialism of the 21st century and so on. In its present state, the article is just misleading, since it would lead some to believe that the "Fifth International" has been a defined and coherent concept, while the various people who have used the term "Fifth International" have nothing in common (unless one thinks there is an intimate political connection between Hugo Chavez in 2007 and Lyndon LaRouche in 1965 !). So far, this "Fifth International" is just wishful thinking : while it deserves to be mentioned here and there, wikipedia should not be used to give it substance. Jean-Jacques Georges ( talk) 06:28, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
* Fighting Fifth International, a 1938 proposal by [[POUM]] (Workers' Party of Marxist Unification)
* Fifth International, a 1941 proposal by Argentine Troskyist [[Quebracho]]
PS: This is distinguishable from, e.g., Second Constitutional Convention of the United States, because the "Fifth International" is a different entity created/convened through a different process with different role-players, in different places, toward different ends, in every formulation, while the 2CC is the same idea, to take the same form, in the same place, with the same roles (the legislators then in office), and under the same rules, the only significant difference between the proposals being what they hope the constitution-redrafting process will produce, and based on what values. It's like the difference between trying to have an article about a science fiction TV series that might appear next season on BBC 1, but about which we don't know anything other than general genre, vs. an article on various scripts and drafts and pilots and whatever for an upcoming TV series the basic plot of which is known already, and where only details regarding the differences between the treatments vary. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 23:46, 7 July 2014 (UTC)