From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article was nominated for deletion on 2007-01-06. The result of the discussion was no consensus, default to keep.

Wikipedia is not a soapbox

Wikipedia is not a soapbox or a vehicle for propaganda and advertising. Therefore, Wikipedia articles are not:

  1. Propaganda or advocacy of any kind. Of course, an article can report objectively about such things, as long as an attempt is made to approach a neutral point of view. You might wish to go to Usenet or start a blog if you want to convince people of the merits of your favorite views. You can also use Wikinfo which promotes a "sympathetic point of view" for most articles.
  2. Self-promotion. It can be tempting to write about yourself or projects you have a strong personal involvement in. However, do remember that the standards for encyclopedic articles apply to such pages just like any other, including the requirement to maintain a neutral point of view, which is difficult when writing about yourself. Creating overly abundant links and references to autobiographical articles is unacceptable. See Wikipedia:Autobiography, Wikipedia:Notability and Wikipedia:Conflict of interest.
  3. Advertising. Articles about companies and products are acceptable if they are written in an objective and unbiased style. Furthermore, all article topics must be third-party verifiable, so articles about very small "garage" or local companies are not likely to be acceptable. External links to commercial organizations are acceptable if they can serve to identify major corporations associated with a topic (see finishing school for an example). Please note Wikipedia does not endorse any businesses and it does not set up affiliate programs. See also Wikipedia:Notability (companies and corporations) for guidelines on corporate notability.

Contents 1 This is self promotion 2 How is this a controversial deletion? 3 Truncated article 4 Okay, so what is POV about the article? 5 tianmaen

[edit] This is self promotion

The PSL's New York City branch is based in Harlem.

Just statements is self promotion and does not belong in wikipedia. It mentions that it has a branch in Harlem throughout the article.

Would you like me to create an AfD page for you? -Amarkov ^blah_edits 02:33, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] How is this a controversial deletion?

No one has yet to dispute it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.161.73.206 (talk) 02:36, 6 January 2007 (UTC).

I dispute it. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 02:37, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I dispute it too, certainly it doesn't meet any of the criteria for speedy deletion based on the content here. Issues with the article should be taken to either the talkpage (preferable at this point) or to the articles for deletion page. Newyorkbrad 02:43, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I would dispute it too, at least for the time being. I might support an AfD though. The article has problems. It needs to plainly assert notiability. It needs to source to local or regional media outlets that documented events and activities. As it is all sources are self promoting. What about some scholarly references (texts or periodicals) on the development/devolvement of socialist or revolutionary parties? I don't see how this autobiographical, however, unless the creating editor is the only member. Edivorce 02:59, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Truncated article

I see that yet another Anon IP, this time with no prior edit history what-so-ever has sharpely truncated the article pending it's AfD. I won't get into a revert war. I have said my peace. I believe the article should be evaluated on this version. I'll trust that Wikipedians can figure this out for themselves. Edivorce 16:25, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

This anon IP was me, and was mistakenly not logged on. All the recent anon IP are pretty much me. I did not have an account. I registered and created one too. This is not a mystery now. As you can see right now, I just did it again. Wiki doesn't seem to let me stay logged in. SetofFive 20:51, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Okay, so what is POV about the article?

Please tell. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 17:33, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

If there is no response, say for another week, elaborating on the basis of the POV claim, can we remove the tag?Edivorce 01:07, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

If the fact about the Harlem branch is repeated, it is probably an oversight or mistake, and should be removed. I don't understand how this constitutes an article deserving of deletion. I don't see how stating the Party's positions qualifies for pov or how, moreover, the article is significantly different from other Wiki entries on small parties. I'm for removing the tag. The pen 20:11, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

The article does not state the party's positions in an NPOV way. Instead of actually comparing its own relations to nationalist movements with comparable organisations, it simply states that "PSL supports the right of nations to self-determination." Well, so does every other Marxist group. The effect is that PSL's interpretation of "supporting self-determination" is the correct and only approach to that, and those who aren't so quick to lunge into apologetics for dodgy regimes are therefore "opposed" to this elementary principle. It's the equivalent of a pro-life politician being described as "against infanticide" - so are pro-choice people - or the old euphemism/alibi for homophobia and misogyny, "family values". Besides which, some of the prose is horrifically clunky - I think it needs one of those tags too. Commander deathguts 22:38, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] tianmaen

How can you blame the Psl for positions taken before they even existed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.238.83.158 (talk) 14:53, 9 May 2008 (UTC)