411:- 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.
387:"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."
297:- 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
254:, LIT-CI was, at its peak, one of the major Trotskyist tendencies internationally. Its Argentinian section had some 300,000 followers and the Brazilian PSTU is a major organization as well. It goes to show that these mass deletion postings haven't been done correctly, a reading of the article would clearly have indicated notability. --
381:- 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
389:
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
269:
Simply and I might say simplistically claiming that an article lacks notability does not prove your assertion. I am not a partisan of the IWL but I do note that it is present and active in a considerable number of countries and counts its advocates in the thousands if not tens of thousands. I also
433:
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
333:
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 —
356:
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
338:
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.
157:
91:
86:
95:
48:. Unlike other similar articles nominated for deletion, this one does have a third party reference, even though of unclear reliability, but in the absence of editors discussing it, I cannot find a consensus to delete.
78:
151:
434:
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
270:
note that politically they have a considerable claim to being a distinct and distinctive international political current. In plain language the entry topic does have considerable notability.
82:
228:
118:
74:
66:
205:
172:
317:
published by Duke
University Press and held by something like 180 libraries worldwide. There have been monographs written on Trotskyism in America (Constance Myers,
139:
464:
445:
423:
399:
366:
348:
288:
263:
243:
220:
197:
60:
301:
should automatically meet the standard of encyclopedia-worthiness, without regard to size or ideology. These are the subject of serious scholarship. The
133:
129:
179:
280:
382:
460:
145:
17:
362:
193:
456:
479:
36:
329:
Basil
Blackwell, 1984). Yes, little sects such as this are tiny; no, you're not going to find stories on them in the
298:
478:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
358:
284:
189:
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
276:
310:
165:
419:
302:
239:
216:
395:
344:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
335:
305:, closely linked to Stanford University, in 1991 published the 25th annual edition of its
259:
51:
441:
415:
235:
212:
391:
340:
390:
mass challenge, this message will be likewise copied-and-pasted where applicable.
112:
309:
recording the history and activities of left wing parties like this. The scholar
334:
serious information that BELONGS in a comprehensive encyclopedia. It's time to
255:
315:
International
Trotskyism, 1929-1985: A Documented Analysis of the Movement,
436:
323:
413:
I'm adding this opinion to all the organizations proposed for deletion.
325:
Humanities Press, 1996) and
Trotskyism in the UK (John Callaghan,
472:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
108:
104:
100:
455:- Article does not meet general notability criteria.--
319:
The
Prophet's Army: Trotskyists in America, 1928-1941,
164:
321:
Greenwood Press, 1977; Breitman, LeBlanc, and Wald,
178:
75:
International
Workers League (Fourth International)
67:
International
Workers League (Fourth International)
229:list of Organizations-related deletion discussions
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
482:). No further edits should be made to this page.
206:list of Politics-related deletion discussions
8:
307:Yearbook of International Communist Affairs,
227:Note: This debate has been included in the
204:Note: This debate has been included in the
226:
203:
327:British Trotskyism: Theory and Practice,
383:Knowledge (XXG):Policies and guidelines
357:Carrite's remark is hardly required.
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
313:authored an 1100 page volume called
24:
1:
188:No evidence of notability.
499:
400:23:20, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
367:19:48, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
349:17:01, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
289:15:19, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
264:12:41, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
244:10:11, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
221:10:11, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
198:03:16, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
465:14:58, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
446:21:08, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
424:18:30, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
61:06:25, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
475:Please do not modify it.
32:Please do not modify it.
359:Superheroes Fighting
190:Superheroes Fighting
311:Robert J. Alexander
303:Hoover Institution
44:The result was
414:
279:comment added by
246:
232:
223:
209:
59:
490:
477:
412:
336:Ignore All Rules
299:WP:Verifiability
291:
233:
210:
183:
182:
168:
116:
98:
58:
56:
49:
34:
498:
497:
493:
492:
491:
489:
488:
487:
486:
480:deletion review
473:
331:New York Times.
274:
125:
89:
73:
70:
52:
50:
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
496:
494:
485:
484:
468:
467:
449:
448:
427:
426:
405:
404:
403:
402:
372:
371:
370:
369:
281:195.172.178.18
267:
266:
248:
247:
224:
186:
185:
122:
69:
64:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
495:
483:
481:
476:
470:
469:
466:
462:
458:
454:
451:
450:
447:
443:
439:
438:
432:
429:
428:
425:
421:
417:
410:
407:
406:
401:
397:
393:
388:
384:
380:
376:
375:
374:
373:
368:
364:
360:
355:
354:
353:
352:
351:
350:
346:
342:
337:
332:
328:
324:
320:
316:
312:
308:
304:
300:
296:
292:
290:
286:
282:
278:
271:
265:
261:
257:
253:
250:
249:
245:
241:
237:
230:
225:
222:
218:
214:
207:
202:
201:
200:
199:
195:
191:
181:
177:
174:
171:
167:
163:
159:
156:
153:
150:
147:
144:
141:
138:
135:
131:
128:
127:Find sources:
123:
120:
114:
110:
106:
102:
97:
93:
88:
84:
80:
76:
72:
71:
68:
65:
63:
62:
57:
55:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
474:
471:
452:
435:
430:
408:
386:
378:
330:
326:
322:
318:
314:
306:
294:
293:
273:Mike Pearn
272:
268:
251:
187:
175:
169:
161:
154:
148:
142:
136:
126:
53:
46:no consensus
45:
43:
31:
28:
275:—Preceding
152:free images
54:Sandstein
416:Mia-etol
277:unsigned
236:Mia-etol
213:Mia-etol
119:View log
457:יום יפה
392:Carrite
379:Comment
341:Carrite
158:WPÂ refs
146:scholar
92:protect
87:history
453:Delete
130:Google
96:delete
442:talk
256:Soman
173:JSTOR
134:books
113:views
105:watch
101:links
16:<
461:talk
431:Keep
420:talk
409:Keep
396:talk
363:talk
345:talk
295:Keep
285:talk
260:talk
252:Keep
240:talk
217:talk
194:talk
166:FENS
140:news
109:logs
83:talk
79:edit
437:DGG
180:TWL
117:– (
463:)
444:)
422:)
398:)
385::
377:*
365:)
347:)
287:)
262:)
242:)
231:.
219:)
208:.
196:)
160:)
111:|
107:|
103:|
99:|
94:|
90:|
85:|
81:|
459:(
440:(
418:(
394:(
361:(
343:(
283:(
258:(
238:(
234:—
215:(
211:—
192:(
184:)
176:·
170:·
162:·
155:·
149:·
143:·
137:·
132:(
124:(
121:)
115:)
77:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.