Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Revolutionary Communist League Internationalist

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 of the debate was no consensus to delete. W.marsh 05:41, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Revolutionary Communist League Internationalist[edit]

Delete This is an extremely minor subject. It is unlikely to be expanded beyond its current state as a minute stub. It has not been significantly edited since its creation in August 2004. --metzerly 08:05, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, also no sources so violates WP:V.--Jersey Devil 08:09, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep now contextualized and references. --Soman 13:04, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Still falls very, very short of being notable. Every tiny New Haven split from another group shouldn't get its own article. What did this group do that makes it notable? Your three sources give no more than 1-2 sentences to the RCL(I). --metzerly 15:42, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment some of the material of this article, i.e. the original stub remains unsources. One such thing is that it would have been limited to New Haven. --Soman 08:32, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless more notability is shown. Currently it sounds as mere re-enactment of People's Front of Judea versus Judean People's Front split. Pavel Vozenilek 18:19, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Factual, neutral, and sourced. What more do you want? —Sesel 01:08, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Notability. I'm not against small groups getting noted, but they need to at least have done something. This one seems to have done nothing but float around. Not even the sources cited give this group the time of day. --metzerly 02:39, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment a general problem with groups that ceased to existed prior to www is that material on the are often scarce. Most probably virtually all material mentioning this group would not exist on www. --Soman 08:32, 24 March 2006 (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.