Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Workers Party of Barbados

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 no consensus‎. I note that merely assuming that offline sources exist is not enough; to make a topic verifiable they must be cited (WP:V). A renomination is therefore possible. Sandstein 08:43, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Workers Party of Barbados

[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)

Party contested one election and received 40 (!) votes, or 0.03%. Needless to say, it does not meet WP:ORGCRIT. AusLondonder (talk) 15:33, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, and Barbados. AusLondonder (talk) 15:33, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A random dude, obviously not a notable party. Reywas92^Talk 15:48, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Non-notable. Shadow311 (talk) 15:57, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - article expanded now. Going through what is available online, we can deduce that there was plenty of coverage of the party as of the mid-1980s, and that the fore-runner of WPB (MONALI), which from my reading could be considered one and the same organization, had gained national notoriety during the protests of 1983 Grenada invasion. We can also surely assumed that there would be coverage in Cuban, Soviet, Korean and Nicaraguan news outlets, not available online. --Soman (talk) 20:30, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How would North Korean media be WP:RS during an active conflict situation? Geschichte (talk) 09:16, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - concur with Soman; the forerunner is referenced in the CIA's 1983 World Fact Book (p.17) more than reasonable to assume furhter offline sourcing available. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 23:43, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A "mention" is not significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources. AusLondonder (talk) 11:49, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Shouldn't the article be about MONALI, then, with an appendix in that article about the WPB? Geschichte (talk) 09:16, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:39, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:14, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm seeing lots of mentions of the party in a range of different publications, from regional reports to a mention about the boycott of the games, in spite of the low turnout on election day. Think the sourcing is there to keep this one even though they didn't make much of an impact, though reasonable arguments for merging somewhere else might exist. SportingFlyer T·C 23:02, 25 March 2024 (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.