Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/World Anti-Imperialist Platform

World Anti-Imperialist Platform[edit]

[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)

Reviewed during NPP. Despite the impression given by having 21 references, there is zero independent coverage of the orgaanization much less GNG coverage. They are ostensibly a communist organization but their main thing seems to be that Russia's war in Ukraine is just and a struggle against imperialism. Of the 21 references, 7 are flatly themselves (either their website or a copy of a speech they gave) 1 is a YouTube video of an interview of one of their people which is basically another speech, 3 don't even mention them, 3 give a very brief mention of them and 7 are criticisms of them by communist organizations. I also could not find any real sources on them, and I looked harder than usual. The article is basically sourced to themselves but then does mention the criticisms. So no real sources on them means no wp:notability from which to build an article. If there were actual sources, this might be an article worth having....for example they might reveal that this is some type of a Russia-created ploy which is trying to dupe communist organizations. But right now there is zero independent coverage of them in sources. Interestingly the organization's website has no "about us" or "our history" section, no contact info (address, phone number etc.) except a gmail email address. It's a stretch to even call it "sourced to themselves" because the "about self" info in the article (eg when it was founded) is not even on their website. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 23:26, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Politics. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:07, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Another editor has added additional references. Some other references are newspapers and news sites, admittedly biased ones. including TASS. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 08:24, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I checked the new references. Nothing new regarding the main issue, still no independent coverage of the organization much less GNG coverage. I actually WANT that coverage to be found and thus for the article to exist. There are lots of critiques of them and of their positions by communist organizations. Maybe that's enough to keep via WP:IAR North8000 (talk) 12:50, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A lack of independent, non-partisan coverage of the subject of this article. Although there is certainly controversy among communists over the ideological stances of this organization, this is of little relevance to readers who are not communists or otherwise familiar with the ideological positions of this group. Further, this organization is more-or-less an ideological extension of the CPGB-ML, so any criticism that does or will exist from third-parties would likely be more focused on that particular party or any other major member parties. SociusMono1976 (talk) 17:44, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep.

The presence of criticisms by other communist organizations suggests a level of engagement within a specific community or ideological sphere that could warrant further examination. These criticisms from within the community provide context and demonstrate that the organization has sparked discussion and controversy, which is a form of coverage and recognition. While some editors question the sources of the critiques, this is not uncommon in the coverage of niche or emerging political movements, especially those with a specific ideological leaning. The inclusion of external criticisms — even if from ideologically aligned groups — does serve to broaden the discussion about the platform beyond its self-representation. Additionally, the fact that these external sources bother to critique the organization lends weight to its relevance in its sphere. Wikipedia's notability guidelines do not strictly require that all articles at all times must have extensive media coverage. For niche political organizations, the requirement can be met through significant coverage in specialized publications or through the impact demonstrated in inter-group communications and critiques. Wikipedia's goal is to provide a comprehensive database of knowledge that includes all verifiable perspectives, including those from smaller or less mainstream entities. The existence of an article on a potentially lesser-known but ideologically significant organization like the World Anti-Imperialist Platform contributes to this goal. The community has a strong preference for improving articles rather than deleting them when possible. If the current references are deemed insufficient, the appropriate response would be to tag the article for needing additional citations from independent sources, rather than outright deletion. The inclusion of ruling political parties from countries like Venezuela, Guinea-Bissau, and North Macedonia elevates the organization's political significance. These countries' involvement is not only a testament to the platform's influence but also to its relevance in international politics. This kind of international collaboration among ruling parties inherently suggests a level of notability that deserves recognition and documentation on Wikipedia. The participation of such significant political entities justifies an argument for the preservation and further development of the article. Wikipedia's guidelines on notability do not strictly require exhaustive coverage in mainstream media if the subject can be demonstrated to have significant impact or involvement by notable entities. The involvement of ruling parties should be considered a form of significant coverage. The organization’s connections to countries with notable geopolitical profiles—especially Venezuela, known for its significant international political interactions—underscore the importance of the platform in understanding global geopolitical dynamics. This aspect alone provides a substantial basis for keeping the article, as it serves as a critical piece of the puzzle in understanding international alignments and ideological conflicts. Deleting or undermining the presence of such an article could result in a significant gap in the available information about a notable international coalition that influences political opinions and actions. It is crucial for Wikipedia to represent such entities accurately and comprehensively to fulfill its mission as an encyclopedia that covers the full spectrum of human knowledge. Rather than deletion, this situation presents a clear opportunity for improvement. Encouraging contributors to seek additional independent secondary sources that discuss the platform's activities and influence could enhance the article's quality and reliability. This approach aligns with Wikipedia's principles of verifiability and neutrality while ensuring that significant political entities are appropriately represented. Castroonthemoon (talk) 17:51, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm of two minds on this. Even if it is just a mysterious front organization for Russian operatives (which is my current best guess it is and the Greek Communist party seems to hint at [1] ) then perhaps it would be good to have an article if only to eventually expose it. But to build an article we need sources to build it from and we basically have zero sources about this mysterious organization. We have them talking about themselves, we have communist organizations critiquing their stances and a few short "we attended an event of theirs" sources. The WP:notability requirment basically is "we have sources which cover the subject". Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 21:17, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I find it interesting that you mention that. The primary challenge with the subject material is that it’s a supranational organization composed mainly of communist parties. It’s not a centralized entity but rather a congress of 50 parties and organizations, multiple of which form or take part in the governments of their respective countries. Supranational organizations often do not make headlines, as evidenced by the noticeable lack of notable sources in the list of Political international articles. Among the notable articles covering the platform that I’ve found, I can’t use them as they are from Russia Today or other sources deemed less reliable by Wikipedia. This highlights a broader issue of sourcing when it comes to international and especially non-Western political movements. The absence of coverage in mainstream Western media should not be a default barrier to notability, particularly when the subject has a significant impact on the political or ideological landscape of multiple countries. Another issue with this organization is that it includes only a few English-speaking organizations, which explains why outlets like MSNBC, CNN, etc. have not covered it. However, this does not inherently diminish its notability or significance. The substantial opposition to the World Anti-Imperialist Platform (WAP) from other parties underscores its notability. As you mentioned the Communist Party of Greece, it's also worth noting the emerging split in the international communist context between KKE-aligned anti-Russian parties and pro-Russian WAP parties, a division that should be crucial to document. Castroonthemoon (talk) 20:54, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Again I'm of two minds of this.....actually I sort of want this article to exist. But let me play devil's advocate on critiquing your argument. It is a mysterious organization which has gotten some communist organizations so declare thermselves members or attend their conferences. You speak as if it is some organization consisting of those members, but there is no evidence or coverage of it really being that. There is zero evidence/coverage of it being a real organization governed by those members. Even on their own website, there is nothing indicating that it is an actual organization. No leaders or officers, no mechanism of how it is governed or how the participants play into that governance. So how are we to cover this entity with absolutely zero independent coverage of it as an entity? North8000 (talk) 23:41, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:01, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe if we strip out or reword that areas where they have been used as a source on themselves this would become an edge case keep-able article, waiting for coverage of the organization per se by independent sources. I'll try that. North8000 (talk) 01:04, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I find that that would be one of the best possible solution regarding this article Castroonthemoon (talk) 17:11, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to try that and we'll see where/how this goes. North8000 (talk) 14:28, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think I'd be in favor of at least temporarily keeping this article, maybe on an WP:IAR basis regarding GNG notability. I did some editing to more clearly identify self-described material as such. It probably is still distorted in some sense in that it has undue stuff in it. Sore example, if a few representatives marched in a parade, such gets a few sentences in the article. Even if this organization is just a Russian scam regarding Ukraine, this article at least gathers together the small amount of material and sources available on this arguably or possibly impactful entity. I'd probably put a summary of this AFD discussion at the talk page. North8000 (talk) 18:35, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:35, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]