404:- These articles are part of a series of articles about the various trends within Trotskyism - a political tradition of some relevance with significant presence in a large number of countries,e.g. 5 people with roots in various threads of the tradition (at least one of them fairly obscure) were recently elected to the Irish parliament (the Dáil) - blanket elimination of the more obscure smaller organisations (or sometimes only apparently obscure because they aren't represented in English-speaking countries) will seriously distort Knowledge (XXG)'s coverage of this political tradition. We should be careful not to take decisions based on our political opinions or prejudices or to allow ourselves to be seen to be yoked into a political campaign (even if this may not be deliberate on the part of the proposer). While there may be a case for consolidation of some of the articles into longer more inclusive ones and some of the articles may require more referencing - if necessary in other languages - I think it would be a serious error to delete any of these articles.
366:"Knowledge (XXG) policies and guidelines are developed by the community to describe best practice, clarify principles, resolve conflicts, and otherwise further our goal of creating a free, reliable encyclopedia... Although Knowledge (XXG) does not employ hard-and-fast rules, Knowledge (XXG) policy and guideline pages describe its principles and best-known practices. Policies explain and describe standards that all users should normally follow, while guidelines are meant to outline best practices for following those standards in specific contexts. Policies and guidelines should always be applied using reason and common sense."
276:- Since this is one of a series of articles of a mass deletion effort, I'm going to state my case once and will copy-paste it below — it holds for one and all. This is an encyclopedia. Certain things are considered automatically encyclopedia-worthy at Knowledge (XXG): degree-granting universities, secondary schools, numbered roads, towns, species of plants and animals, and so on and so forth. In my earnest belief, political parties and their youth sections passing the standard of
383:* Can you give any specific reason why this particular group - the International Workers' Committee - should have an article? Not only is there no evidence of notability (as Warofdreams, who seems very knowledgeable about these matters, has confirmed), there is no evidence in the article the organization ever existed.
52:, "If no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, Knowledge (XXG) should not have an article on it." The arguments about including information about small parties in general are beside the point as they do not address that this particular article about this particular small party is unverifiable.
360:- Per Superheroes Fighting's simplistic take that "an article should be kept if what it is about is notable, deleted otherwise," I offer the following... We are discussing application of the General Notability Guideline as it relates to organizational histories. Here is what Knowledge (XXG) says about
368:
This effort to annihilate 20 articles that SHOULD be in an encyclopedia by the rigid and draconian application of ill-fitting GUIDELINES violates common sense. "Ignore All Rules" means nothing more or less than "Use Common Sense to build and improve the encyclopedia." Since this was a copy-and-paste
426:
I concur with
Carrite--historical information of this sort is encyclopedic. Our scope is broad enough to record minor parties. The'yre relatively difficult to judge for notability , without using what are in some cases very difficult to find sources. The reader is best served if they are covered
312:
But they are the subject of scholarly inquiry and deserve notability per se on that basis, just like insects and professional football players are instantly notable if their existence is verified. There is no point to this mass deletion effort. It will annihilate information to no good purpose —
335:
An article should be kept if what it is about is notable, deleted otherwise. It would be silly to keep an article about a group that genuinely isn't notable simply because articles about other groups that might possibly be notable were nominated for deletion at the same time. Further comment on
317:
to defend the quality of the encyclopedia and further, to amend the inadequate current notability guidelines for such organizations. And no, I'm not a
Trotskyist and I don't play one on TV, if there were a similar series of attacks on right wing fringe parties I'd say the same thing.
161:
427:
comprehensively, not selectively. just a small religious movements, and I think our general policy has been to be inclusive of those that have a real existence. The guiding policies are WP:V and NOT PAPER
155:
122:
251:
95:
90:
99:
472:. There is no guideline providing "Inherent notability for tiny splinter political parties lacking multiple reliable and independent references with significant coverage."
82:
228:
296:
published by Duke
University Press and held by something like 180 libraries worldwide. There have been monographs written on Trotskyism in America (Constance Myers,
280:
should automatically meet the standard of encyclopedia-worthiness, without regard to size or ideology. These are the subject of serious scholarship. The
327:
201:
176:
143:
361:
503:
499:
481:
454:
438:
416:
392:
378:
345:
266:
243:
219:
64:
17:
137:
133:
450:
388:
341:
197:
495:
86:
183:
518:
36:
78:
70:
308:
Basil
Blackwell, 1984). Yes, little sects such as this are tiny; no, you're not going to find stories on them in the
277:
149:
517:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
446:
384:
337:
193:
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
215:
468:
Fails verifiability as well as notability. Per failure to satisfy the applicable notability guideline,
289:
169:
445:
How can you give a "keep" for this group when no evidence has been offered that it even existed?
412:
281:
262:
239:
374:
323:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
477:
211:
469:
314:
284:, closely linked to Stanford University, in 1991 published the 25th annual edition of its
55:
49:
434:
408:
258:
235:
370:
319:
369:
mass challenge, this message will be likewise copied-and-pasted where applicable.
116:
288:
recording the history and activities of left wing parties like this. The scholar
473:
313:
serious information that BELONGS in a comprehensive encyclopedia. It's time to
294:
International
Trotskyism, 1929-1985: A Documented Analysis of the Movement,
429:
302:
406:
I'm adding this opinion to all the organizations proposed for deletion.
304:
Humanities Press, 1996) and
Trotskyism in the UK (John Callaghan,
511:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
112:
108:
104:
494:- Article does not meet general notability criteria.--
298:
The
Prophet's Army: Trotskyists in America, 1928-1941,
168:
300:
Greenwood Press, 1977; Breitman, LeBlanc, and Wald,
182:
252:list of Organizations-related deletion discussions
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
521:). No further edits should be made to this page.
229:list of Politics-related deletion discussions
8:
286:Yearbook of International Communist Affairs,
250:Note: This debate has been included in the
227:Note: This debate has been included in the
249:
226:
210:- cannot find any evidence of notability.
48:. The article is entirely unsourced. Per
306:British Trotskyism: Theory and Practice,
362:Knowledge (XXG):Policies and guidelines
336:Carrite's remark is hardly required.
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
292:authored an 1100 page volume called
24:
79:International Workers' Committee
71:International Workers' Committee
1:
192:No evidence of notability.
538:
379:23:18, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
346:19:50, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
328:17:03, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
267:10:10, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
244:10:10, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
220:08:23, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
202:03:19, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
504:14:58, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
482:02:36, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
455:23:19, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
439:21:07, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
417:18:29, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
393:05:22, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
65:06:05, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
514:Please do not modify it.
69:
32:Please do not modify it.
447:Superheroes Fighting
385:Superheroes Fighting
338:Superheroes Fighting
194:Superheroes Fighting
290:Robert J. Alexander
282:Hoover Institution
44:The result was
407:
269:
255:
246:
232:
63:
529:
516:
405:
315:Ignore All Rules
278:WP:Verifiability
256:
233:
187:
186:
172:
120:
102:
62:
60:
53:
34:
537:
536:
532:
531:
530:
528:
527:
526:
525:
519:deletion review
512:
310:New York Times.
129:
93:
77:
74:
56:
54:
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
535:
533:
524:
523:
507:
506:
487:
485:
484:
462:
461:
460:
459:
458:
457:
420:
419:
398:
397:
396:
395:
381:
351:
350:
349:
348:
271:
270:
247:
223:
222:
190:
189:
126:
73:
68:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
534:
522:
520:
515:
509:
508:
505:
501:
497:
493:
490:
489:
488:
483:
479:
475:
471:
467:
466:Strong Delete
464:
463:
456:
452:
448:
444:
443:
442:
441:
440:
436:
432:
431:
425:
422:
421:
418:
414:
410:
403:
400:
399:
394:
390:
386:
382:
380:
376:
372:
367:
363:
359:
355:
354:
353:
352:
347:
343:
339:
334:
333:
332:
331:
330:
329:
325:
321:
316:
311:
307:
303:
299:
295:
291:
287:
283:
279:
275:
268:
264:
260:
253:
248:
245:
241:
237:
230:
225:
224:
221:
218:
217:
213:
209:
206:
205:
204:
203:
199:
195:
185:
181:
178:
175:
171:
167:
163:
160:
157:
154:
151:
148:
145:
142:
139:
135:
132:
131:Find sources:
127:
124:
118:
114:
110:
106:
101:
97:
92:
88:
84:
80:
76:
75:
72:
67:
66:
61:
59:
51:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
513:
510:
491:
486:
465:
428:
423:
401:
365:
357:
309:
305:
301:
297:
293:
285:
273:
272:
214:
207:
191:
179:
173:
165:
158:
152:
146:
140:
130:
57:
45:
43:
31:
28:
212:Warofdreams
156:free images
58:Sandstein
409:Mia-etol
259:Mia-etol
236:Mia-etol
123:View log
496:יום יפה
371:Carrite
358:Comment
320:Carrite
162:WPÂ refs
150:scholar
96:protect
91:history
492:Delete
474:Edison
470:WP:ORG
208:Delete
134:Google
100:delete
46:delete
435:talk
177:JSTOR
138:books
117:views
109:watch
105:links
16:<
500:talk
478:talk
451:talk
424:Keep
413:talk
402:Keep
389:talk
375:talk
342:talk
324:talk
274:Keep
263:talk
240:talk
216:talk
198:talk
170:FENS
144:news
113:logs
87:talk
83:edit
50:WP:V
430:DGG
184:TWL
121:– (
502:)
480:)
453:)
437:)
415:)
391:)
377:)
364::
356:*
344:)
326:)
265:)
254:.
242:)
231:.
200:)
164:)
115:|
111:|
107:|
103:|
98:|
94:|
89:|
85:|
498:(
476:(
449:(
433:(
411:(
387:(
373:(
340:(
322:(
261:(
257:—
238:(
234:—
196:(
188:)
180:·
174:·
166:·
159:·
153:·
147:·
141:·
136:(
128:(
125:)
119:)
81:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.