Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Communist League (US)

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, no secondary sources. --Steve _(Stephen) ^talk 07:06, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Communist League (US)

Communist League (US) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Article is sourced solely from the subject's own publications. There were numerous notable organizations that used "Communist League" as their name (or part of it), but this "recently formed" organization (after the 2004 elections) isn't one of them. It isn't, for example, the youth section of the Communist Party USA. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 23:07, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete non-notable organization. Wooyi^{Talk to me?} 23:30, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
• Weak keep for any political party whose actual existence can be demonstrated, and their own publications are sufficient for that. The various groups tend not to publicize each other, so other sourcing will be difficult. DGG 02:32, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

  They do not appear to have contested any elections, so I'm not sure if I would call them a "political party." Anyway, self-sourcing does not demonstrate they are an actual group. The Unabomber claimed to be a revolutionary group as well. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 13:16, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

From the article: "Because of its clandestine character, the names of its members, and its total membership, are kept secret. The only known name of a member of the Communist League is Henry Miles, who is the editor of Workers' Republic and a public spokesperson for the organization." ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 13:20, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

• Weak Keep publications which have been continuous since 1994 point to notability, but just barely. page needs cleaning. --Cjs56 14:57, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete independent publications about this group seem nonexistent... an article is thus inherently problematic. --W.marsh 19:55, 23 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.