Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Platypus Affiliated Society

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. Aside from all the SPAs, there are only three opinions here - an impassioned nominator, one conclusory delete vote, and one incredibly spirited keep (trying to strengthen a fairly weak argument with a lot of tl;dr for optics). That's not really consensus for anything, but I am guessing that we will not get any more independent voices to wade into this morass. I have decided to close this delete because the article is quite fluffy and messy and WP:TNT applies. Perhaps a neutral stub can be put together from the meager RS -- I am not opposed to recreation, if done properly -- but this particular article is no good. -- Y not? 16:02, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Platypus Affiliated Society

Platypus Affiliated Society (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Reject PROD by anon IP, without comment. As per PROD comment:

No reliable sources to establish notability.

Additional comment: this article is full of fluff sourcing, most of it from primary sources related to the organization. A lot of sources are to the letters page of a the Weekly Worker - not even the editorial sections - as well as some random mentions by notable figures. All said and done, there no GNG notability. Cerejota (talk) 19:24, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

The article has had warnings around this (put by a different editor than me):

This article may rely excessively on sources too closely associated with the subject, preventing the article from being verifiable and neutral. (April 2013)

This article's listed sources may not meet Wikipedia's guidelines for reliable sources. (April 2013)

For three months no action has been taken to fix these issues, and while there is no deadline, these are central issues of inclusion, if not fixed.--Cerejota (talk) 19:28, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Sir Rcsprinter, Bt (gas) @ 23:16, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Sir Rcsprinter, Bt (state) @ 23:17, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

• Keep - This petition to delete makes claims about the inadequacies of the references, but fails to indicate what references have been omitted. As a member of this organization I find this entry to include the majority of references to it, including a catalog of each of the criticisms of it. Given the substantial weight given to criticisms of the organization it unclear how the page violates the policy of neutrality. There are a number of dead links that need to be revised, but even so, there are remain over a dozen links to external organizations. There are indeed links to many notable figures, but these were either speakers in the organization's events or were published in the organization's journal - the group publishes a monthly publication distributed in Europe and North America and it hosted over 20 public events in the past year (in six different countries) The page certainly meets GNG.Inkmoustache (talk) 20:22, 30 June 2013 (UTC) — Inkmoustache (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Keep - Per the guidelines of notability: the organization has received 'significant coverage' by virtue of articles reporting on and/or critiquing the organization in at least 12 different sources (counting only listed references on the links section of the page) in independent reliable sources such as the _New Yorker_. Several publications have published (several) articles in which the organization has been the main focus (including editorials in the _Weekly Worker_, for example. The warnings are one thing -- and the page should be updated -- but there are no grounds for deletion and there are no grounds to the lack of GNG notability. Eulerianpath (talk) 23:21, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

• Keep Due to the amount of criticisms the organization receives, and the fact the organization is referenced by other notable groups such as the CPGB with this article . It seems to qualify for the GNG criteria; however, it really needs a cleanup to update all the dead links and relink to the original articles because they are still online, but that has been mentioned by the previous editors beforehand so it is noted. Ramba Ral87 (talk) 14:30, 1 July 2013 (UTC) — Ramba Ral87 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 00:02, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

---

• Comment Gotta say, all !votes are from either members of this group (And a SPA to boot), or people who sound like they are connected to this group - there is the strong smell of canvas and locker rooms in here. Weekly Worker and the CPGB are certainly notable, but notability is not inherited, and Weekly Worker (With a circulation in print of 500 and 20,000 daily visits to the website) hardly constitutes a reliable source as per GNC to establish notability. Mentions in actual reliable sources (Such as the above reference mention in the New Yorker)are not about them, but their peripheral role on some event or the other - that is, they are included as source buffing (the New Yorker mention, for example, is about their small role in hosting some event for Naomi Klein - if we gave notability to everyone mentioned in such a role in the media, we might as well do away with inclusion rules). If we eliminate these source buffs, we come to realization they are not notable except to themselves and few of their rivals - there is little encyclopedic value. If anything, the only information about this group that belongs in wikipedia, if at all, is the Richard Seymour open letter, because of the sheer amount of notables who signed. I suggest this be relisted until which time actual editors agree or disagree with my article for deletion request. But keep under these circumstances would be supporting vanity pages. --Cerejota (talk) 02:42, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

• Strong Keep I'm not a member or subscriber, but as someone who runs in fairly leftist circles I think the denigration of the Weekly Worker as unreliable is a bit silly, and that the thrust of the RfD is not liking a few sources while ignoring everything else. It's certainly an article in need of cleanup, but this would be an absolutely unjust deletion. RyanGrant (talk) 05:13, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, you are inactive for almost a year, then show up and comment on 3 different AfDs besides this one. Seems legit. That said, the Weekly Worker is reliable as a source for many things - itself, supplementary secondary and primary sourcing, and it is - as I said - notable in itself (I mean, their editors appear on the BBC as experts on the left all the time). However, they are a not a reliable source to establish notability - which is a technical concept in wikipedia that is essentially how do we answer that question "does this warrant encyclopediazation?". Furthermore, even if they were a reliable source for notability, most of the linked material is from the letters section - not the editorial content - and even the most reliable source is not automagically wholly reliable. For notability, generally, we look for multiple mentions and direct coverage in high grade editorial content. In this case, there is basically only the mention of this subject, not in depth coverage, and most of this commentary is of a general nature. Notoriety can be part of notability, but it is not the only measure of notability. Platypus is notorious, but it is hardly notable - and the amount of SPA and socking in here shows why they are notorious: basically internet trolls. Lets not feed the trolls and delete this.--Cerejota (talk) 17:21, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Ahem: "I will always assume good faith on the part of my fellow editors and will be civil at all times, even to those who are not civil to me." You've done a great job of questioning my bona fides, and of writing off The Platypus as a troll work, and of denigrating everyone who responded to this RfD as sockpuppets, but your own rationale for deletion hasn't passed muster. The distinction that you're efforting between notoriety and notability relies far too much on an editor's own biases regarding the source material, and The Platypus is clearly prima facie notable in that segment of leftist thought. This article is a clear keep. Have a nice day!RyanGrant (talk) 18:04, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Actually, the distinction I make of notability and notoriety is part of of the guidelines themselves - read WP:NRVE, WP:V and WP:RS. I have not been uncivil, and I didn't brand anyone as socks, some editor correctly identified two of the accounts as SPAs, and generally SPA presence means evidence of sock or meat puppetry, and I stated so. We are entitled to our opinions, and expressing them is not uncivil unless it has no basis. I suggest you participate more in the project to find out more about how this works - you clearly are confused as to the meaning of the terms notability, reliable source, assuming good faith, and civility. This is a common mistake even experienced editors sometimes make, but it is rather more common among the less experienced and the less active.

In this case, your argument is weakened by a complete misunderstanding of actual practice on policy - and you failed to respond to my specific point regarding the reliability of the material sourced to the Weekly Worker as it applies to notability in Wikipedia. I will also suggest you read this essay - WP:AAGF - as it explains why, in fact, you might not be assuming good faith, and thus, not being quite civil yourself, even if you intend to do otherwise. My interest is to remove a non-notable item from the encyclopedia, not to further the agenda of a given group, nor god forbid insult the foremost tabloid of the British left! --Cerejota (talk) 03:01, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Comment Cerejota, you've asserted existence of spa and sock-puppetry -- but I'm not sure what this is based on or if this is intended to suggest something about (for example) my account. Please clarify. Furthermore, you've said that you think the group consists of "basically internet trolls. Lets not feed the trolls and delete this." To me, this seems a move to delete an entry because you dislike the group or think that they are "trolls". In terms of the substance of the argument, you did not respond to me, above. The number of notables that have written for, been published in, or responded to the publication meets notability standards. --Eulerianpath (talk) 22:08, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

I have not insisted on there being SPAs - I mentioned it once, and offered clarification because it was questioned. I have, however, remained focused on the specific issues of notability and intent. Describing the group as internet trolls is of course subjective, but it is an important argument in the presence of SPAs - whose existence was not noted first by me, but by the relisting admin. Of course, the presence of SPAs is not a reason to delete, but it is a reason to make sure the closing admin and anyone who wants to join in the discussion be aware that there might be a bad faith effort to poison the well. This is so because of WP:VANITY concerns - something that happens with some frequency here.

The reason to delete, however, remains the same: here we have again a problem with the definition of notability - "the number of notables that have written for, been published in, or responded to the publication meets notability standards". No - that is not notability, notability is multiple reliable sources making independent and verifiable in depth coverage of the topic. In the sourcing currently in the article, most of the in depth coverage is by sources not independent of the subject, or by sources generally not considered reliable sources as per the definitions here, which are specific. That notables acknowledge the existence of something is not automatically a measure of notability - as you seem to argue. Notability is not inherited, and you are making an argument it is, as we are asked to avoid during deletion discussions (Please read WP:NOTINHERITED - you are making an argument similar to point 1 there). I did reply to you in the substance, you simply ignored this, so I am repeating it in a different way, and will repeated again: your definition of notability is not wikipedia's definition of notability. You need to meet our definition, not yours.

Certainly Platypus might be used as a source or mentioned in an article about Naomi Klein, or used in the context of Richard Seymour's article to discuss the open letter or in other contexts as part of articles on other topics. No one is saying Platypus is a hoax, is non-existent, or is not notorious, or that it doesn't rub shoulders with notables. Nor is there any consideration that Platypus is not to be mentioned at all in Wikipedia. What we are discussing is if it reaches a level of notability that warrants inclusion of a stand alone article. I have explained my reasoning as to why not - but the objections to my reasoning, unfortunately, seem to misunderstand what is notability, and what constitutes a reliable source and a verification process in terms of determining notability. For example, the Weekly Worker covering Platypus is not a reliable source, because it is them alone - there is no multiple coverages - and because it is mostly in the letters section of the publication, rather than in depth editorial content. The New Yorker coverage is not about Platypus - it is a mention in the context of Naomi Klein. And one by one we see that there is not a single thread of establishing notability, but rather a random collection of mentions of Platypus, rather than coverage about Platypus. No one has shown in here that this article meets GNG or WP:ORG - specifically: "Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability". All of the independent secondary coverage from reliable sources present is trivial or incidental, and thus not sufficient to establish notability. To make it more direct: Zizek and some other notables might have mentioned Platypus, but they have not done so in a manner that establishes notability - that is, the mentions are trivial or incidental and thus not sufficient to establish notability. That is the bottom line.--Cerejota (talk) 20:17, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

The appropriate guidelines in this case are given in WP:CORP. This is a clear keep. --Jean-Pierre Serre (talk) 11:20, 10 July 2013 (UTC)—Jean-Pierre Serre (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

WP:CORP and WP:ORG (which I linked above) are the same thing. This does not meet them, as I noted above, as all coverage in reliable sources is trivial or incidental. --Cerejota (talk) 20:37, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

• Keep There are multiple sources addressing this subject directly in detail. The inclusion criteria for notability are satisfied by the references given in the article, which constitute more than trivial mention as there is significant treatment of the subject in reliable independent sources. Profiles in multiple independent sources directly addressing the group itself--not its engagements with other notables--are enough to establish independent notability (i.e. not inherited) and warrant inclusion as a stand-alone article. Contrary to the claim made above by Cerejota, the Weekly Worker coverage in the articles "Theoretical dead end" and "No need for party?", and the reviews in Die Tageszeitung, "Adorno, Lenin und das Schnabeltier", and Workers Vanguard, "Platypus Group: Pseudo-Marxist, Pro-Imperialist, Academic Claptrap", constitute independent and reliable secondary sources on this subject: each are authoritative in relation to the subject and published by outfits with reliable publication processes. These satisfy the minimal criteria for notability. Further, the case is strengthened considering the comparable lack of reliable, independent, third-party sources in relation to the subject more generally (WP:RS) and the international scope of the audience as indicated by the German language review (WP:ORG, "Evidence of attention by international or national, or at least regional, media is a strong indication of notability.").

The editor Cerejota requesting the RfD may be motivated by a conflict of interest. Public, self-disclosed, and still-existing information identifies Cerejota as Carlos Rivera (WP:OUTING: "references to still-existing, self-disclosed information is not considered outing", "if individuals have identified themselves without redacting or having it oversighted, such information can be used for discussions of conflict of interest"). Carlos Rivera (aka Cerejota) is a signatory of the "open letter" he notes above. The letter calls on the far-Left to shun the Platypus group. If Cerejota demonstrably retains an antagonistic external political relationship to the subject (WP:CONFLICT), the RfD must be considered part of the campaign announced in his "open letter," cited in the article. --Jean-Pierre Serre (talk) 10:55, 10 July 2013 (UTC)—Jean-Pierre Serre (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

You realize Carlos Rivera is a rather common last name, right? Se for example Carlos_Rivera_(disambiguation). Nice try tho. That said, there is no COI present - and I say so as someone who has helped shape COI policy in wikipedia, and the policy contains, verbatim, things I wrote for it. This is the problem of not focusing on the actual merits of the argument as per policy and instead attacking me with SPAs. --Cerejota (talk) 20:37, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

By reasonable standards, there is sufficient evidence that the signatory of the anti-Platypus public letter Carlos Rivera and Cerejota are the same person. A quick Google search will confirm. --Jean-Pierre Serre (talk) 03:12, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Following up on Jean-Pierre Serre Jean-Pierre Serre, a search of 'Maosoleum' AND 'Cerejota' Cerejota suggests the Carlos Rivera of the Mausoleum blog who signed the anti-Platypus letter associates with the alias 'cerejota'. It also seems not merely a case of a common name as there are only a dozen names on this letter. I am not a regular editor and, for disclosure, a member of Platypus, but I would ask that the COI be considered in weighing this call for deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Inkmoustache (talk • contribs) 20:54, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Comment Also, the Worker's Vanguard article, cited above, as the title would suggest is almost entirely about Platypus. Platypus is the main subject of the article -- not incidental. --Eulerianpath (talk) 17:47, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Workers Vanguard is not a reliable source for notability - it is a partisan source. It might be reliable as a source for content. Please read the applicable policies and guidelines which specifically explain the difference. Put simply, Workers Vanguard is a partisan source - that is, it does not adhere either to journalistic standards nor to peer reviewed or third party examined processes, like for example a book from a well respected publisher would be. That said, even if we accept it as a source, we need multiple sources, not just one, as spelled out by me, and the links I provided, above. --Cerejota (talk) 20:37, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Comment The necessary and sufficient criteria for reliability as far as notability is concerned are that sources (1) must be authoritative and (2) must be published by organizations with reliable publication processes, according to WP:ORG. Each of the sources cited above unquestionably meet both criteria. If a source like the Weekly Worker or Workers Vanguard is partisan or biased, this does not imply that they do not adhere to journalistic standards, etc.. This is explicitly stated in WP:RS:

[R]eliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Common sources of bias include political, financial, religious, philosophical, or other beliefs.

Sometimes "non-neutral" sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject. When dealing with a potentially biased source, editors should consider whether the source meets the normal requirements for reliable sources, such as editorial control and a reputation for fact-checking.

Moreover, the fact that both partisan sources frequently publish corrections is, according to WP:RS, a "signal that a news organization engages in fact-checking and has a reputation for accuracy," which again reinforces the case for reliability. Even if you argue against the reliability of the Weekly Worker and Workers Vanguard by claiming they are "less established" according to Wikipedia's standards, this still would not disqualify them as reliable sources. It would only mean they should be "considered less reliable for statements of fact." They are not cited here as primary sources for statements of fact, but rather as secondary sources providing coverage (again, read WP:RS, WP:PSTS). Aside from multiple profiles from reliable and independent sources, notability is further indicated by the fact that the three sources are international, the Weekly Worker being British, Workers Vanguard American, and Die Tageszeitung German (WP:ORG: "Evidence of attention by international or national, or at least regional, media is a strong indication of notability.") The general requirements for notability according to WP:GNG, as well as the more specific primary and alternate requirements in WP:ORG, are met. --Jean-Pierre Serre (talk) 02:56, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Comment The point of the Workers Vanguard reference is not whether or not it accurately describes the organization or whether it is "reliable source" -- the point is to prove that (yet) another notable publication has published a substantial, in-depth article that deals primarily with Platypus, the organization in question here. The WV is not alone, but one among many. The Workers Vanguard, the Weekly Worker, and Die Tageszeitung each have published extensive articles dealing primarily (not incidentally) with Platypus. Several other publications and books have addressed the organization in less extensive ways (though the New Yorker article is long and has about a page about Platypus), the Zizek book cites an article in Platypus -- and there are more. But here you have 3 independent notable publications that write about Platypus extensively and many more that write about it less extensively. Cerejota, why have you not responded to this point or to Jean-Pierre Serre's other points? It seems we are left with a series of publications, each of which you try to dismiss in one way or another -- but all of which add up to an overwhelmingly strong case that this is an organization with interlocutors and critics that write about them substantially and from all over the world. It is an organization that people look to wikipedia to find information on -- as evidenced also by the number of hits it gets (both on wikipedia and on the platypus website). It really seems like you're trying hard to bend things and find details as to why this is "vanity page" -- even though you think that the group is a bunch of trolls that should be shut up! This case is clear and the way that you are talking about it (that you think they are trolls) demonstrates your COI. Eulerianpath Eulerianpath (talk) 00:04, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Before you comment again here - repeating already made points - I suggest you read this: Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. In your several comments, you have done many of those, and I have tried to explain to you why they are not good arguments, but it seems that repetition requires a more explicit approach.

I do not insist on anything - rather I am trying to explain to you that contrary to popular belief, deletion arguments do not consist on people screaming loudly that something is what they say it is and then winning. They consist of actual policy based argumentation, fact checking, and closing admin discretion. There is an insistence that there exist reliable source coverage that is enough to provide notability, but a real examination shows it is all WP:PUFFERY and that the only sources providing coverage are not reliable sources in establishing notability. If you want to consider Workers Vanguar a reliable source, fine - but under what criteria? It is not widely considered such, even within the far-far-left it populates. Again, and this seems to be the point you do not understand, notability and reliability for the purpose of notability are not the same thing. No amount of repetition, or not understanding policy and guideline, will change that central fact: because a source is notable doesn't mean it is reliable for this fact alone. In fact, there are plenty of potentially reliable sources that are not notable themselves - small obscure journals, small town newspapers, vanity or self-published memoirs of notables, etc. Please understand that I am explaining how wikipedia works - not debating with you the merits - which are none - of your argument. This is in the hopes you (or someone else) can come up with an actual argument for inclusion that is convincing and doesn't amount to repeating that same incorrect thing in the hopes it becomes correct.

As to the transparent attempt(s) to poison the well, it doesn't need addressing. Admins are a generally smart bunch, and I trust they know what is going on. Those are distraction from the real issue that this is a vanity page for a group that is not notable as per our policies for inclusion. --Cerejota (talk) 03:49, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

And what of Die Tageszeitung? You also have not repudiated your incorrect assertion that the Weekly Worker articles were substantially about Platypus and were (also) not reducible to letters to the editor, but rather editorials themselves, as well as coverage throughout the paper. This has been listed several times and you have not responded -- continuing to insist the contrary. Please repudiate or correct. Eulerianpath (talk16:18, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Die Tageszeitung's article is an opinion (not reporting or editorial) column, which is about Adorno not Platypus, in which Platypus is mentioned in the context of their promotion of Adorno. So yes, this source does not meet the reliability criteria. As it stands, the article is basically WP:PUFFERY. Just because you have been covered doesn't mean you are notable - it is about the quality of this coverage, and of hand mentions in opinion pieces, or coverage in low circulation tabloids, is not notability. It is not that hard to understand. I do suggest you read all the links I provided, because you still seem to be under the illusion that a mention is the same as coverage, and that a source being notable is the same as the sourcing being a reliable source for notability. It is about both quantity and quality, and the basis of WP:PUFFERY is trying to turn quantity into quality, but we are usually smarter than that around here. --Cerejota (talk) 17:18, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

First of all -- the issue is the notability of Platypus here -- not me. Second, you say "just because you have been covered doesn't mean you are notable" and then you say "a mention is [not] the same as coverage". Please clarify. It seems you do not understand the notability guidelines -- which explicitly state the opposite of what you assert above. In particular they state attention (which this plainly is) by "international or national...media...is a strong indication of notability". This is clearly not an off-hand mention as it is substantially covered in the article and in the title. Your opinion of the quality of the article or of the publication is simply irrelevant. Eulerianpath (talk Eulerianpath (talk) 18:16, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Please read WP:WIKILAWYER and then WP:ORGDEPTH/WP:CORPDEPTH. Put simply, there are exactly two potentially reliable sources that do coverage of Platypus Affiliated Society - The New Yorker and Die Tageszeitung's. In both cases, the coverage in incidental to the main topic of the articles, and in the case of the article in Die Tageszeitung, it is an opinion column, which are generally considered only above letters sections in terms of considering reliability for notability. Thus, while these sources are potentially reliable, the coverage is not in depth or non-incidental. There is indeed in depth coverage in two non-reliable sources. Superficial coverage in RS+in depth coverage in non-RS=notability is a false proposition. And yes, arguing WW and WV are reliable sources for notability is stretching the definition of RS. In fact, I am asking about this at WP:RS/N. --Cerejota (talk) 21:23, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Keep - I'm a philosophy student who tries to entertain a variety of interests. Wikipedia has always been a source for preliminary clarification - a great place to start. Cursory overviews chock-full of citations that I can then refer to for further clarification. For the purpose of my work, I can then narrow my investigation to academic sources. It's been a wonderful tool, as such. Regarding The Platypus Affiliated Society, I have no dog in this fight because, frankly, I don't know anything about it - not yet. I was brought here while trying to investigate Platypus after coming across a copy of the Platypus Review at school. Upon inquiry, fellow grad students confirmed a cursory familiarity with the organization, as well as a couple professors. It was strange to read the deletion consideration notice, as I understood Wikipedia to hold listings for legitimate phenomena. I'm not yet sure how Platypus might not warrant the same legitimacy. After reading the above comments, I get a sense that the reasons given for the dismissal of Platypus as a standalone page are unfair or, dare I say, disingenuous? Shar Jackson warrants a standalone page, North American Man/Boy Love Association warrant a standalone page. The spectrum is fairly well represented, from the obscure to the perverse. I'm unsure, therefore, of how a known and established organization is being contested for the same consideration. Hard copy brought me here. If there are problems within the page re: citations or accuracy, flag it as such, but deletion seems bizarre. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jesi1981 (talk • contribs) 06:19, 11 July 2013 (UTC) —Jesi1981 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

You are also an SPA. So interesting nearly everyone commenting keep is an SPA.

That said, please read this WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS - you are making an argument we specifically ask people not make. One of the reasons being, that for every example, there are equally valid counter-examples. For example, a much bigger, better known, and longer existing organization that Platypus exists - International Bolshevik Tendency, yet there was a successful deletion discussion for it. I am not arguing Platypus should be deleted because the IBT was - I already laid out my rationale quite clearly - but I am indeed showing how comparing one article to another is pointless and possibly even disruptive, instead on focusing on the actual merits (or lack of merits) of this article. We are discussing Platypus' article, not Shar Jackson or NAMBLA - keep to the topic. --Cerejota (talk) 20:37, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Forgot to include the deletion discussion for IBT: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/International_Bolshevik_Tendency. I think it is much more applicable to this case than I thought it was, thank you for reminding me, Jesi1981! Specially all the !v keeps getting ignored for the right reasons. One hopes for such equanimity from the closing admin here. --Cerejota (talk) 20:41, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

• Delete as non-notable (NYT mentions it once en passant - which is pretty minimal). I would be more kind to it were it not for some of the ... interesting ... !votes above from what are, charitably speaking, less-than-active editors. Collect (talk) 21:33, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

• Keep I am not a single purpose account, have not been canvassed and am most certainly not a sock puppet. I never heard of this group until yesterday, although in the spirit of disclosing conflict of interest, I was a member over 20 years ago of one left group mentioned in the article. I have participated in over 1500 deletion debates and have over 20,000 edits here. However, well over 99% of my edits have nothing to do with left politics.

I saw this deletion debate discussed on the Reliable sources noticeboard, where the question was raised by the nominator as to whether the Weekly Worker and the Workers Vanguard should be considered relaible sources to establish the notability of a Marxist group. In my opinion, these are exactly the kind of specialist publications that are appropriate for establishing notability and sourcing articles on left and Marxist groups. Many of the articles I have written are biographies of mountaineers, and I know which mountaineering journals have a good reputation. Significant coverage in such mountaineering journals establishes notablity for mountaineers. Similarly, based on what I've read about them (and I read several issues of one of them many years ago), these two communist publications have a longstanding reputation for seriously analyzing and critiquing the ideology and work of other left and Marxist groups. These publications each have a strong point of view, but not an identical one by any means. A point has been made that much of the coverage in the Weekly Worker consists of an exchange of letters. Those familiar with the editorial policies of such left publications will be aware that a lengthy exchange of letters back and forth is indicative of serious political attention showing notability, and can't be compared to a trivial letter to the editor of my home town paper complaining of problems with garbage pickup on my street.

The article on Naomi Klein from the The New Yorker called OUTSIDE AGITATOR: Naomi Klein and the new new left] includes at least a dozen sentences about Platypus. This is significant coverage in a major mainstream media outlet. Lest the nominator argue that the article is not primarily about Platypus, please note that the General notability guideline helpfully advises us that "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material". Although the article is in serious need of cleanup, it seems clear to me that the topic is notable as we define the term here on Wikipedia. Worthy of note is that the coverage is from several countries, and is not geographically localized.

Since I have disclosed my extremely peripheral and outdated conflict of interest from several decades past, let me ask the nominator a question, though it will require some exposition first: You were the first to mention a letter critical of Platypus initiated by Richard Seymour though I am sure that you meant to link to the article about the British Marxist who styles himself as "lenin" as opposed to the American professional football player. Jean-Pierre Serre, a new user and arguably an SPA, has claimed that the nominator is a signatory to the Open letter about the Platypus Affiliated Society which I would characterize as a political declaration of war calling for the Platypus group to be ostracized on the left. The signatory in question is on record in his own blog calling Platypus "the most dangerous cult in the left". It seems to me that there are three possibilities here, and because I take outing seriously, I won't mention the person's real life name. The first possibility is that this claim by Jean-Pierre Serre is unacceptable outing, and that nothing more should be said about the matter other than a warning to cease outing. However, I note that the nominator has not made any complaints of outing, and that the nominator has previously voluntarily linked to the real world name, and also edits in the left politics topic area. Nominator, please complain now if outing is the case. The second possibility is that, as the nominator points out, the name in question is "rather common" (even among Marxists living in New York City, I suppose), and that the nominator is an entirely different person than the one who signed the open letter. If either possibility one or possibility two is true, then I apologize in advance to the nominator for this line of argument. The third possibility is that the nominator is, in fact, a signatory to that letter, and has a clear political vendetta against the subject of this article. If so, either the nominator should withdraw what is thereby exposed as a fundamentally flawed and biased nomination, or the closing administrator should take careful note of the blatant conflict of interest. So my question to Cerejota is clear and direct: Are you a signatory to the Seymour letter?

I am also compelled to point out the violation by the nominator of our core policy regarding Biographies of living people in this debate. The nominator has called the Platypus group "notorious: basically internet trolls". This personal attack against members of this group is unsupported by any reliable sources, and I remind the nominator that BLP policy says that "BLP applies to all material about living persons anywhere on Wikipedia, including talk pages, edit summaries, user pages, images, and categories." Accordingly, I request that the nominator redact this personal attack immediately.

Since the nominator has made at least twelve comments so far in this debate, and has also told other editors about Arguments to avoid in deletion debates, let me comment that experienced AfD reviwers find it somewhat disruptive when the nominator feels compelled to chide, chastise and lecture everyone who wants to keep the article, repeating the same points over and over again. The relevant essay is Avoid repeated arguments. Let's count on the closing administrator to separate policy based arguments from less relevant ones, and to make an appropriate decision. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:49, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

As you are an experienced editor, I am highly surprised by a lot of your assertions:

1- COI is not present even if I am the signatory and I am neither confirming nor denying that. In any case, it presents an apparent COI, but in no way is there an actual COI. Republicans edit the Democrat's articles and vice-versa, people from rival sports teams, what not. There is no valid claim of an actual COI in those cases - as that would be preposterous: we are allowed to even edit, request for deletion, etc, our own articles. A COI is not present in that. A COI is when this relationship provides some sort of advantage - paid advocacy is a prime example, or when Jimbo got funky with his own BLP and tried to use his power to move the masses. A lone editor who might or might not have signed a letter against a topic - and who admits openly to not being particularly friendly anyways (ie announces an apparent COI without the need for outing) doesn't have an actual COI. Of course, I DO have a COI in explaining this to you (As well as the things below) as they are directed at me, but I trust that you are able to see the wisdom of my words as a general interpretation based on deep experience in conflict areas (at every end - I have had death threats thrown at me by actual COIs), as to why you migth be wrong. If you do not retract, however, I would ask that you pursue the appropriate process, because this is a serious allegation that you cannot simply make without serious implications. You probably know what the process is.

What I am indeed concerned about is about non-notable organizations having vanity pages in wikipedia, as part of their self-promotional efforts. And it has not been only political groups. I have actually successfully and unsuccessfully participated in many such AfDs, and many of them initiated by me. There was one guy that even had to be banned for sending me a death treat. My commitment to wikipedia as a project, while spotty and unreliable, has always been to its betterment, above any other consideration. Thus, while having an apparent COI, I do not have an actual COI. To ask if there is outing or not, or insist I reveal my identity, is immaterial to this case. And thus, it deserves the answer I give. BTW, what IS outing, is describing me as a leftist in NYC. I do live and claim to live in NYC. I have not made a claim to being a leftist on wiki. Please remove that and request oversight, including of this part of my comment.

2- A personal attack is a personal attack directed at an individual, and to specific material about a living person, not the opinion one has against a person's group in an anonymous way. Put simply, for an attack to be personal, it has to be to personally directed. I didn't name a person, thus I didn't engage in a personal attack or a violation of BLP. More so, in the context of the SPA-flood, it gives other editors context, so that they can make up their own minds as to the intent and purpose of these SPAs.

3- As I am doing now, I have not repeated arguments in the abstract - I have answered direct questions and requests for clarifications, and I have addressed them. In fact, the participating editors directly requested things. I think you should reconsider your view that I am repeating arguments - in particular because I am being directly addressed and asked to reply, rather than swooping in to reply with a repeat. Put simply, and you should know this, WP:REPEAT is not about avoiding all repetition, but a particular form of repetition, which is one in which there is no dialog or in which the responses are trite. Here on the contrary, when faced with the possibility of a repeated argument, I actually sought the third party commentary of RS/N, not because I felt I was correct, but because I recognized there was no possible solution, and AGF asks me to trust my fellow editors. Civility in other words, compelled me to reply to direct inquiries addressed at me. To claim these as repetitions is to really misunderstand the purpose of the essay, and my intent, essentially putting me between a rock and a hard place: if I do not reply I would be being a dick, if I do reply, I am repeating.

4- I am going to chalk it up to a bad day, but seriously, how can yo go into an AfD infected with SPAs, and go after the one productive editor around? I would have to ask you to reconsider the tone and approach you have taken, which doesn't strike me as particular constructive - focusing too much on the editor and not enough in the content, and even then, too much on the one editor who appears to be strongly committed to wikipedia, rather than the SPA farm.

As to the material content, even if we accept the New Yorker mention as meeting the extensive criteria, then we are left with the fact this only one source. But that would be repeating my argument - and as per your original interpretation of that essay, that would be wrong.

And as to WV and WW being RS, I think your argument is compelling, but I have seen other group's articles deleted on these sources and other similar ones - the consensus seems to be that there needs to be more than specialist publications mentioned. I can point, for example, to the IBT above, which has been covered VERY extensively in both publications (Workers Vanguard mentions the IBT in nearly every issue since the organization exists), and yet deleted. I do not mean it in a "other stuff exists" sense, I mean it earnestly curious as to what the implication is? Is the consensus moving? If these two are accepted in argument as reliable sources for notability, then surely the IBT would stand a chance. And that it didn't is why I oppose the acceptance of these sources as RS for notability (although certainly are RS for content). --Cerejota (talk) 10:22, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

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.