Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Revolutionary Communist Youth League (Bolshevik)

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. The negative assessment of the sources linked to by BobFromBrockley has remained uncontested. Sandstein 17:54, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Revolutionary Communist Youth League (Bolshevik)

[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)

Almost completely unchanged since its creation in 2009. Reads like a propaganda piece and should be deleted. Was considering G11, but this felt safer. Anarchyte (talk) 12:53, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Anarchyte (talk) 12:53, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Anarchyte (talk) 12:53, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Who wants to bet a million dollars BitChute, Fox News, Breibart, MRC Newsbusters and other dumb far-right outlets will not cover this article's AFD just to keep its readers having a perception that Wikipedia has a commie agenda? Anyway, Strong Delete. Only thing I found was this self-published blogpost 👨x🐱 (Nina CortexxCoco Bandicoot) 17:05, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Coverage on runet is limited to Communist blogs and a few internet encyclopaedias, which do not constitute notability. [1] Akakievich (talk) 20:22, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but trim the puffery and add sourcing tag. Here's the Russian page, which is flagged as needing more sourcing but does include enough sources to suggest notability. BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:28, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Bobfrombrockley: From just a cursory glance, it doesn't look like the citations used in the ruwiki article are any good. The first four are self-published and the ref11 is a passing mention. I'll have a look at the others later, but I'm not hopeful. Anarchyte (talk) 04:11, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:19, 21 December 2021 (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.