Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Workers Party, USA
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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 of the debate was keep. Physchim62 (talk·RfA) 21:42, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Workers Party, USA
No evidence that such a party exists. Nonsense. -Nameneko 08:52, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
- Comment. Evidence is easily found via google: [1]. They do exist, though the article is still gibberish as it stands.
Speedy Delete nonsense, attack, & csd:A1 --Anetode 10:21, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
Workers party exists.
68.55.145.124 10:24, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Non-notable partisan organization. I don't mind if someone speedies this, it is quite incoherent. jni 13:15, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
- Keep I've rewritten it as a stub about the real group. Keresaspa 13:34, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
- Based on Keresaspa's edit, I say keep. DS 13:47, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
- Keep with rewrite. --MacRusgail 17:22, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
- Keep and expand. McPhail 18:56, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
- Keep the rewrite. Real party. Punkmorten 20:46, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
- Keep Keresaspa's rewrite about real political party. Capitalistroadster 23:44, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
- Weak Keep. Most articles in this "party"'s newsletter are signed by the same person (Michael Thorburn) with an occasional contribution by a Bill Foster, so it's basically a political newsletter operating out of a mailbox and not a political party in any recognizable sense of the word. Still, they have apparently been around since 1992 and their archive goes back some 8.5 years, so it's at least borderline notable. Ahasuerus 00:32, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
- Comment some of these small left wing groups seem to be almost one man bands (or they'd all fit in a phonebox anyway), and don't stand in elections, however they can make a big noise, and also be involved in unions and actions, which is what makes them significant. --MacRusgail 16:18, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
- Comment: But is this true of Michael Thorburn's "Worker's Party, USA"? Does this party wield any sort of significant influence? Has it made any notable contributions to local or national politics? --anetode¹ ² ³ 22:42, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
- Comment. Notability can be hard to establish when it comes to very small political movements. I suppose that if they have a clearly documented track record of existence (a newsletter, brochures, books, address, etc) over multiple years, it's better to err on the side of caution and include them even though it may be a one man show with no influence on politics. It's a tough call, though, since I don't think that similar criteria would apply to, say, original research or fanfiction unless there was some other evidence of notability. Ahasuerus 02:16, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
- Comment: But is this true of Michael Thorburn's "Worker's Party, USA"? Does this party wield any sort of significant influence? Has it made any notable contributions to local or national politics? --anetode¹ ² ³ 22:42, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
- Comment some of these small left wing groups seem to be almost one man bands (or they'd all fit in a phonebox anyway), and don't stand in elections, however they can make a big noise, and also be involved in unions and actions, which is what makes them significant. --MacRusgail 16:18, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
- Keep with rewrite. The deletion of a topic should not be proposed if an alternative such as rewriting would suffice. Jtmichcock 10:36, 25 October 2005 (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.
