Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Parity Committee for the Reconstruction of the Fourth International (2nd 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:30, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Parity Committee for the Reconstruction of the Fourth International[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Parity Committee for the Reconstruction of the Fourth International
Articles for deletion/Parity Committee for the Reconstruction of the Fourth International (2nd nomination)

[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)

No refs on the page and I can't find anything which would be sufficient for basic verification of the facts on the page JMWt (talk) 10:55, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. JMWt (talk) 10:55, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:21, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @JMWt: per WP:NEXIST and the discussion at the 2011 nomination; what justifies a change in consensus? Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 02:06, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 12:06, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:09, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Previous AfD seemed to focus more on factors other than sourcing. However, the issue here seems to be a lack of available sourcing. The ultimate issue is the organization/group fails Wikipedia:GNG, and Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) due to a lack of in-depth coverage in reliable sources. Article contains no references and my own search turned up nothing of significance including in Google Scholar and in Wikipedia Library. Plain Google mostly turned up Wikipedia clones and one or two non-RS sites. At the end of the day, if we can’t establish notability, we can’t establish it. Unless somebody turns up some in depth reliable sources I’ve missed, I’m for deletion. Jo7hs2 (talk) 15:24, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Editors already questioned whether this met GNG in the 2011 deletion discussion, and none of the keep voters seem to have provided any evidence it did. I can't find anything on google scholar. WP:NEXIST is all well and good, but it's been twelve years since the last deletion discussion and in all that time nobody seems to have found any reason to believe that GNG-meeting sources do exist. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 15:47, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Do not know, but nothing much would be lost if it were deleted - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Parity Committee for the Reconstruction of the Fourth International did suggest where scholars could go to research this organisation. If someone wanted they could use the sources mentioned to write an article on this topic based on reliable sources.-- Toddy1 (talk) 16:19, 31 March 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.