Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/International Working People's Association

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. >Radiant< 10:52, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] International Working People's Association

International Working People's Association (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Non-notable organization. I couldn't find any sources describing this particular organization. There was a notable organization of the same name that was involved in the Haymarket Riot, but this is not connected to it. That organization was anarchist while this organization was a modern grouping of communist organizations, until some members left to form the International Association of Working People, or something like that [1]. We should delete this article so an article about the historical group can be written in its place. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 22:39, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sr13 08:08, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete As a non notable organisation. Luckily for the evil running dogs of the capitalist hegemony the article notes the IWWP is on 'hold' at the moment because of internal disputes. Nick mallory 09:18, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Surprisingly the article does not say whether the Tooting Popular Front is an affiliate. BTLizard 10:40, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletions. --   ⇒ bsnowball  10:53, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
• comment: to the nominator: how did you figure out that the current organization is different from the Haymarket Riot association? Links, please? The older organization is certainly notable; the current organization may or may not be; there's not very much online to be able to tell. At any rate, the article should be reworked to include the historical group. -- phoebe/(talk) 04:24, 24 May 2007 (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.