Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/American Party of Labor (3rd nomination)

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. Like the two previous AFDs, I see a consensus here to delete this article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:18, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

American Party of Labor[edit]

AfDs for this article:

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable. Every single citation does not qualify for notability purposes.

1: EMEP is affiliated with the ICMLPO, meaning it is not "independent" for notability

2: Its a single paragraph and a quote from the APL's newspaper in a 437 page book. Not significant coverage.

3: This book contains a note, in which the APL is mentioned in passing. Not significant coverage.

4: The APL is a member of the ICMLPO. Not only that, its actually involved in the declaration. Not independant

5: Its about their flag, not significant

6: From the APL itself

7: From the APL itself

8: Interview with their party head. Considered primary [1] by wikipedia's policy

9: Arbeit Zukunft is a member of the ICMLPO, and is not independent as a result

10: A Verdade is the newspaper of the Brazilian ICMLPO party, and is not independent

11: From the APL itself

12:From the APL itself

13: Not only from the APL, but from twitter too

14: Same as 10

15: Not significant, the APL is one of dozens if not hundreds of member orgs mentioned

16: Same as the above, the APL is just mentioned as a signer, alongside their national head as an individual signer

17: Just mentioned as an 'endorsing organisation', one of many

18: Its just a source dump that quotes articles, including the APLs. Twice. In 184 pages.

19: The URL is [2]. You can see its just a reprint of an article by the APL, by a source that is not reliable at that.

20: https://huskiecommons.lib.niu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1800&context=allfaculty-peerpub P15. Just a passing mention of the APL using a cartoon.

21: https://www.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:1564497/FULLTEXT01.pdf The APL is being cited a few times. Not significant coverage [or coverage at all, they aren't mentioned besides being cited]

22: Published by the APL

23: Published by the APL

24: From the APL itself Oxlong (talk) 18:06, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, and United States of America. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:09, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree with the source assessment above, the rest of what I find is trivial mentions of this group. Oaktree b (talk) 19:59, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retain. The source assessment above is flawed. The charge that sources from ICMLPO parties are "not idependent" is a stretch. They are friendly sources that share a political orientation with APL, to be sure. But, these are independent publications from independent, individual organizations. Otherwise, it would seem that the only acceptable sources would be "neutral" or hostile ones. Visigoth500 (talk) 02:02, 9 June 2023 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Visigoth500 (talk • contribs) 01:57, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
According to policy, even an article by their competitor isn't proof for notability. Independent means third-party, meaning it has "no vested interest" in the topic (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Independent_sources)
Because these organizations not only share a political orientation like you state, but also coordinate activities through a joint international body, they have a vested interest in the success of the APL, and thus cannot be regarded as fulfilling this criteria. To sum up, the required sources should be neutral. Oxlong (talk) 10:04, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
APL is not a full member of ICMLPO, merely an observer. You are making an unproven assumption that ICMLPO controls its observer parties and that there is no distinction between the two. The policy guideline on independent sources that you cite does not prove your assertion. Visigoth500 (talk) 13:53, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please provide proof as to how specific sources do not meet these criteria:

"* Reliable: A third-party source is reliable if it has standards of peer review and fact-checking. In general, the more people engaged in checking facts, the more reliable the publication.
Third-party: A third-party source is independent and unaffiliated with the subject, thus excluding first-party sources such as self-published material by the subject, autobiographies, and promotional materials.

Sources: At least two third-party sources should cover the subject, to avoid idiosyncratic articles based upon a single perspective.

Based upon: These reliable third-party sources should verify enough facts to write a non-stub article about the subject, including a statement explaining its significance."

Visigoth500 (talk) 13:57, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I know that it is not a full member, it states as such on their Wikipedia page (and I went through its sources, so obviously I read it in full). My point would stand even if they would have made no declarations of any kind together. But when, by your own admission, they are "friendly sources" and "share a political orientation", they are definitely not unaffiliated, hence cannot be third-party.

Being in the same international organization, making political statements together, and having a shared direction politically is by itself irrefutable evidence of not being truly independent of each other. Furthermore, these parties share the journal Unity & Struggle together, which they publish jointly through the ICMLPO. They each send articles to it to be published.

Hence, not only are they connected internationally in the aforementioned ways, they even directly collaborate on projects.

Even if my friend is a scholar, his article would not be 'notable' in regards to me, because professional or not, he is my friend. In other words, affiliated with me, and not neutral.

From the same URL, we have:

"A third-party source is one that is entirely independent of the subject being covered, e.g., a newspaper reporter covering a story that they are not involved in except in their capacity as a reporter."

Meaning that its comparable to a group of five scholars, who are all close friends, reporting on each other. Oxlong (talk) 15:40, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, that is not "irrefutable evidence of not being truly independent of each other." "Furthermore, these parties share the journal Unity & Struggle together, which they publish jointly through the ICMLPO. They each send articles to it to be published." That point is irrelevant. By that logic, academic departments who are members of the same professional association and submit scholarly articles to its journal are not "independent" and should be rejected. You are making overarching generalizations based on unproven and highly speculative assumptions. Visigoth500 (talk) 17:13, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is a false equivalence. If a university department would have written about the university itself, or another department within the very same university, it would indeed not be independent and should not be used as a source on Wikipedia for notability purposes.

Likewise, you claim I am making "overarching generalizations based on unproved and highly speculative assumptions", yet I provided conclusive evidence for all the points of contention I raised. However, you provided no evidence in your comments, and yet behaved in an unprofessional and rude manner, alleging I have acted in exactly such a fashion.

Even if we were to apply your example of university departments endorsing and writing on each other in exactly the same manner these political parties do, it would fail notability guidelines and therefore would not fulfil the burden of proof regarding the right of this topic to be included on Wikipedia.

Furthermore, you have neglected to answer the argument I raised on the matter. How does the present situation differ in any regard from 5 scholars, all of whom are members of a group of colleagues and friends endorsing each other to warrant Wikipedia articles for themselves? I ask that you adress these points, but this time, please refrain from the usage of non-productive language. Oxlong (talk) 19:15, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have provided no evidence, nor is there any need to respond to your challenges, because I am not defending a position or asserting an affirmative. I am questioning your evidence and your rationale, as is my right. Neither have I behaved in an "unprofessional and rude manner," unless you consider simple disagreement with you and pointing out what I believe are the fallacies in your argument as evidence of "unprofessionalism" and "rudeness." Indeed, you oddly assert that I accuse you of behaving in an "unprofessional and rude manner," when I have said nothing to that effect. My "crime" consists in merely disagreeing with you. You claim that you have provided "conclusive evidence," I disagree for the reasons stated above, that is all. Visigoth500 (talk) 23:43, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You proved my point. You claimed to question "my evidence and rationale", but this entire comment does nothing of the sort. Instead, you give primacy to attacks against my *character*. By alleging, instead, that my only reason for bringing your choice of language to your attention, is due to disagreeing with you. You violated the behavioral guideline of "assuming good faith", and accused me of acting in bad faith.

In order to facilitate more productive discussion later on from your end, I empathically recommend you read this article and apply its conclusions to your future conduct. [1]

More importantly, however, your comment contains no mention, let alone rebuttal, of the counter-arguments I raised. I took special care to accommodate every one of your concerns, while you did not respond to my criticisms.

Neither the university example, nor the scholars example, received any attention in your latest response. The only point of contention that has received any attention from you was the character of your fellow editor. Oxlong (talk) 14:20, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, Sir. My comments were NOT about your "character," but about your method and reasoning. I am not here to debate you, answer your questions, or "rebut" you. I question your methodology, that is all. But, if you insist on making this personal, I have to ask why is it that you create a Wikipedia account on June 8th, make a user page using an AI chatbot, then immediately proceed to call for the deletion of this page? This page seems to be your only Wikipedia activity. Indeed, it appears to be the reason why you created your Wikipedia account in the first place. Could it be that you have an agenda/vendetta against this organization? Could it be that you created this page yourself, have had a falling out with this organization, and wish to enact a personal revenge be having the page you created deleted? Just asking. I shan't communicate with you any further. Let things fall where they may. You have a nice day. Visigoth500 (talk) 16:41, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You are accusing me of having "ulterior motives", but the way you handled this situation tells me you have emotional investment in keeping this article up, although it goes against Wikipedia's guidelines and makes the platform less informative overall, due to the inclusion of an article regarding a minor and unnotable party.

Accusing me on personal grounds does not qualify as 'questioning my methodology'. I requested a plethora of times to keep discussion civil and academic, but you insisted on keeping it grounded in emotion rather than reason.

As a result, I understand you are not able to provide a reasonable argument against my criticisms. Oxlong (talk) 20:23, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps if you had not adopted an obscene, vulgar, and misogynistic joke name as your moniker ("Mike Oxlong" -- My c*ck's long) you would be taken more seriously. Visigoth500 (talk) 17:30, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I do not need to apologize for not writing my real, full name on the internet for the simple reason I do not wish to be doxxed. However, you may be surprised to know "Oxlong" is my real surname, and "Mike" is how people nickname me in my day-to-day life for over 14 years. Yes, I have been the butt of many jokes because of it. But the fact that you reopened your account after stating "I shan't communicate with you any further", and attempted to label this name as "mysogynistic", somehow, shows you lack any argument regarding the topic itself, and proves my argument, that you try to derail the discussion towards personal attacks. Oxlong (talk) 13:11, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Visigoth500 (talk) 17:15, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, if the party is covered by press outlets (regardless of their political colour) it can be used to affirm notability. --Soman (talk) 12:18, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You are right, but neither I, Oaktree, and (presumably) Visigoth could find any mentions which pass GNG. The absence of such sources affirms the proposition that they lack notability. Oxlong (talk) 14:28, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

https://dailytargum.com/article/2016/11/union-protests-standing-rock-with-brower-rally

This is an attempt of deleting a page because of its political affiliation.

Here is an example for coverage that satisfies the notability guidelines in full. The article has directly spoken about the APL and their student wing, and the source itself is more then sufficient. Its obviously sufficient to keep the article as it is, and decisive proof we neednt remove it. The head of their New Jersey Division was even mentioned by name. I am certain Oxlong could not but notice this article in their "investigation". Andrei Zhdanov (talk) 15:50, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Regrettably, it already came up in the previous nomination [2], and the sizeable groups of participants there arrived to the consensus that it does not qualify as notable. The reference to the APL in the article amounts to a mere mention of it's participation in a demonstration and a short Quote of a member.

The standing consensus also determines that, due to the lack of proof regarding the "All Marxist-Leninist Union" truly being their student wing, as opposed to an unaffiliated friendly organization, due to not warranting an article by itself, and due to no inherited notability, this article cannot qualify as a defence for the existence of this page.

Furthermore, the article has long standing issues since its inception (as you can see on the page itself, below the deletion template). Owing to the inadequate levels of attention the organization has received, it is impossible to fix them. A deletion is the only professional course.

You should refrain from baseless accusations, such as my motivation allegedly being grounded in politics. It is a violation of Assume Good Faith[3] My motivation is found within my arguments, and not a single one of them has been refuted yet. Oxlong (talk) 16:54, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Right. You join Wikipedia, immediately create a chatbot generated 'user page,' and the very first, one and only thing, you do is go try and delete this article. Your "good faith" is apparent. Visigoth500 (talk) 17:17, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It seems unfit for a Wikipedian to prolong an argument on the basis of assumptions about the character of a fellow Wikipedian and the circumstances of his contributions to the encyclopedia.

I therefore scrolled through Wikipedia's policies and behavioral guidelines, among others, I came across two guidelines called "No personal attacks" and "Please do not bite the newcomers".

"No personal attacks" [4]

Your recent comments have been exclusively related to my character and alleged motives, and not my editorial contributions, which is in violation of the specificities ("Using someone's affiliations as an ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting their views") as well as the conclusion of the guideline ("Insulting or disparaging an editor is a personal attack regardless of the manner in which it is done. When in doubt, comment on the article's content without referring to its contributor at all.")

"Please do not bite the newcomers"[5]

Seeing as you understand that I am a newcomer to this platform, your actions are in strict violation of at least following guidelines: 5. You repeatedly used sarcasm (e.g. "Your good faith is apparent") 6. You called my response to your argument a criminal accusation ("My "crime" consists in merely disagreeing with you").

I highly suggest that you make room in your schedule to read these articles, so that our ongoing cooperation will become more fruitful and bilaterally pleasant. Oxlong (talk) 21:25, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea what this debate is meant to be about. Although I do have some doubts about the motive of this AfD, my view is to delete the rational for deletion seems to be alright, noting how this page has been deleted two times previously through AfD, and I agree with the source analysis written by nom. Karnataka (talk) 21:00, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: It would be good to get views from other users (in preference to further lengthy additions from those who have already contributed).
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Stifle (talk) 10:26, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Extensive search reveals a minor organisation, the notability of which is difficult to prove. Agree with nominator and open kudoz to Oxlong for handling the discussion in a cool-headed and civil manner. --Ouro (blah blah) 12:33, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Oxlong has more than adequately demonstrated the lack of appropriate sources. - UtherSRG (talk) 16:48, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The ICMLPO and its members are distinct organisations from the APL. Its unfair to ignore their coverage of the subject for notability purposes. Also, just being relevant enough to become a part of this international organisation implies relevance. Andrei Zhdanov (talk) 20:53, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

These sources cannot assert notability precisely because the APL are associates of the ICMLPO and coordinate activities and statements with it. According to the guidelines, even their competitors cannot be used to establish notability[6]. The source must be completely unaffiliated and neutral.

Furthermore, your latter argument conflicts with "No Inherited Notability"[7], according to which any such association does not assert notability. It must be proven that the subject merits inclusion as its stands. Oxlong (talk) 18:31, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This group is so obscure that a writer in very progressive American publication, The Nation, wrote an article in 2020 titled "Should the Left Launch an American Labor Party?", not knowing a tiny party with this name already existed. [8]

I've looked including using the The Wikipedia Library but come up empty.

This is the organization's 3rd AfD.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 02:57, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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.