- 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 Draftify. While there may or may not be issues surrounding AfC, a six month, extendable window in draft space is a better option than relisting an AfD for another week. Further, this is an ideal article for incubation since the issue is sources present, not an issue with the topic. @ Soman:, you can access this at Draft:Socialist Workers Party (Peru, 1992). Star Mississippi 01:14, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
Socialist Workers Party (Peru, 1992)
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Socialist Workers Party (Peru, 1992) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Not a notable organisation. Google searches in English and in Spanish (i.e. Partido Socialista de los Trabajadores Peru 1992) return only primary source results or mentions in leftist blogs/magazines. Nearly no mentions by secondary or tertiary sources aside from mere mentions of its existence (i.e. Confirming the organisation's existence but making no claim to its significance). CentreLeftRight ✉ 23:41, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CentreLeftRight ✉ 23:41, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CentreLeftRight ✉ 23:41, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Peru-related deletion discussions. Goldsztajn ( talk) 10:49, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
- Comment - I'd ask to avoid a delete for now. Now, finding online materials of the UIT-CI section mid-1990s online. At some point this PST must have transformed into the current party Unios - which had parliamentary representation 2020-2021. -- Soman ( talk) 13:43, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
- Draftify if Soman does not find sources today. I don't think holding up the AfD discussion is the right thing to do if it looks like there might be sources but we can't actually share them. The AfC process allows time for this kind of thing. — Charles Stewart (talk) 15:03, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 00:21, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
- Soman has had time to find sources. I would recommend AGFing and draftify so they can have even more time to find these sources that they claim exist.
Chess (
talk) (please use
{{ reply to|Chess}}on reply) 03:30, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
- Given the time of year, some leeway regarding time is not out of order. Regards, --
Goldsztajn (
talk)
09:12, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
- @
Goldsztajn: that's why I !voted to draftify and not delete. Perhaps there sources do exist, and draftification will give Soman at least six months (if not more) to find them. This is what the draftification process is for. But I don't really see the point of indefinitely relisting/keeping in the mainspace when notability hasn't been established.
Chess (
talk) (please use
{{ reply to|Chess}}on reply) 22:19, 31 December 2021 (UTC)- FWIW my experience of AFC is that there is general opposition to the use of draftification once articles are in mainspace. It's important that draftification is not used as a means to circumvent a no consensus or keep outcome when the point of AfD is about a subject's notability, not current content. We're in no rush, we're building an encyclopedia, not a bridge; Soman is a long-time editor in good-standing with significant specialist knowledge in this area, we've no reason to doubt their comment regarding parliamentary representation (which would tend to accord presumed notability) and can assume good faith, let us give them a chance to reply. Regards, -- Goldsztajn ( talk) 23:54, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
- @
Goldsztajn: that's why I !voted to draftify and not delete. Perhaps there sources do exist, and draftification will give Soman at least six months (if not more) to find them. This is what the draftification process is for. But I don't really see the point of indefinitely relisting/keeping in the mainspace when notability hasn't been established.
Chess (
talk) (please use
- Given the time of year, some leeway regarding time is not out of order. Regards, --
Goldsztajn (
talk)
09:12, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:48, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
- Comment - Goldsztajn asserts "my experience of AFC is that there is general opposition to the use of draftification once articles are in mainspace". It is possible this was once true, but my experience both as a long-standing AfD regular and new AfC reviewer is that the resistance to draftification lies mostly on the AfD side. By comparison to AfD with its long-standing unresolved existential divisions, AfC is currently a smooth-running engine. I think there is no basis in either policy or current AfC practice for this resistance to draftification. — Charles Stewart (talk) 10:25, 7 January 2022 (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.
- 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 Draftify. While there may or may not be issues surrounding AfC, a six month, extendable window in draft space is a better option than relisting an AfD for another week. Further, this is an ideal article for incubation since the issue is sources present, not an issue with the topic. @ Soman:, you can access this at Draft:Socialist Workers Party (Peru, 1992). Star Mississippi 01:14, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
Socialist Workers Party (Peru, 1992)
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Socialist Workers Party (Peru, 1992) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Not a notable organisation. Google searches in English and in Spanish (i.e. Partido Socialista de los Trabajadores Peru 1992) return only primary source results or mentions in leftist blogs/magazines. Nearly no mentions by secondary or tertiary sources aside from mere mentions of its existence (i.e. Confirming the organisation's existence but making no claim to its significance). CentreLeftRight ✉ 23:41, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CentreLeftRight ✉ 23:41, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CentreLeftRight ✉ 23:41, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Peru-related deletion discussions. Goldsztajn ( talk) 10:49, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
- Comment - I'd ask to avoid a delete for now. Now, finding online materials of the UIT-CI section mid-1990s online. At some point this PST must have transformed into the current party Unios - which had parliamentary representation 2020-2021. -- Soman ( talk) 13:43, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
- Draftify if Soman does not find sources today. I don't think holding up the AfD discussion is the right thing to do if it looks like there might be sources but we can't actually share them. The AfC process allows time for this kind of thing. — Charles Stewart (talk) 15:03, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 00:21, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
- Soman has had time to find sources. I would recommend AGFing and draftify so they can have even more time to find these sources that they claim exist.
Chess (
talk) (please use
{{ reply to|Chess}}on reply) 03:30, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
- Given the time of year, some leeway regarding time is not out of order. Regards, --
Goldsztajn (
talk)
09:12, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
- @
Goldsztajn: that's why I !voted to draftify and not delete. Perhaps there sources do exist, and draftification will give Soman at least six months (if not more) to find them. This is what the draftification process is for. But I don't really see the point of indefinitely relisting/keeping in the mainspace when notability hasn't been established.
Chess (
talk) (please use
{{ reply to|Chess}}on reply) 22:19, 31 December 2021 (UTC)- FWIW my experience of AFC is that there is general opposition to the use of draftification once articles are in mainspace. It's important that draftification is not used as a means to circumvent a no consensus or keep outcome when the point of AfD is about a subject's notability, not current content. We're in no rush, we're building an encyclopedia, not a bridge; Soman is a long-time editor in good-standing with significant specialist knowledge in this area, we've no reason to doubt their comment regarding parliamentary representation (which would tend to accord presumed notability) and can assume good faith, let us give them a chance to reply. Regards, -- Goldsztajn ( talk) 23:54, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
- @
Goldsztajn: that's why I !voted to draftify and not delete. Perhaps there sources do exist, and draftification will give Soman at least six months (if not more) to find them. This is what the draftification process is for. But I don't really see the point of indefinitely relisting/keeping in the mainspace when notability hasn't been established.
Chess (
talk) (please use
- Given the time of year, some leeway regarding time is not out of order. Regards, --
Goldsztajn (
talk)
09:12, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:48, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
- Comment - Goldsztajn asserts "my experience of AFC is that there is general opposition to the use of draftification once articles are in mainspace". It is possible this was once true, but my experience both as a long-standing AfD regular and new AfC reviewer is that the resistance to draftification lies mostly on the AfD side. By comparison to AfD with its long-standing unresolved existential divisions, AfC is currently a smooth-running engine. I think there is no basis in either policy or current AfC practice for this resistance to draftification. — Charles Stewart (talk) 10:25, 7 January 2022 (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.