Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Federation of Anarchist Communists

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. ✗plicit 14:06, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Federation of Anarchist Communists

[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)

This article has existed as a stub, without any references to reliable sources, more or less in the same form since 2005. I checked through my own sources at hand and couldn't find anything other than a single passing reference in The Continuum Companion to Anarchism. As this article appears not to meet our general notability guidelines, I'm proposing it for deletion. Grnrchst (talk) 13:28, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, and Italy. Grnrchst (talk) 13:28, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The only mentions of this are on Anarkismo, which seems un-RS. Oaktree b (talk) 15:18, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I got a hit for it here, if anyone has access. -- asilvering (talk) 08:54, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
👀 Requested here czar 12:14, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I can't access the above source, sorry. I did find some extra information in Black Flame, but it's very sparse. Summary style would say: FdCA was formed during the 1980s while many new platformist organisations were being established (van der Walt & Schmidt 2009, p. 259); it joined the International Libertarian Solidarity (van der Walt & Schmidt 2009, p. 224); it supports "historical materialism" (van der Walt & Schmidt 2009, p. 107); and it advocates "organisational dualism" (van der Walt & Schmidt 2009, p. 126). This doesn't seem like enough for an article, even a stub. -- Grnrchst (talk) 11:40, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
imo even basic stubs like that are useful, especially if the information isn't available in continuous paragraphs and is scattered through a book like the one you used to write that summary. But that's still only one source, so... -- asilvering (talk) 17:06, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Soft delete. Lacking significant coverage per nom's reasoning and source analysis. czar 12:14, 20 July 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.