Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/American Communist Party

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
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. Closing this a bit early. Consensus is clear and overwhelming. No need to drag this out. Ad Orientem (talk) 18:02, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

American Communist Party

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

American Communist Party (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Organization formed yesterday, and no indication of notability per WP:ORG or WP:GNG. They have a website with a declaration and a currently empty map of chapters. All I can find on them online is a few posts on social media, less than a day old. Ineligible for speedy A7 or a move to draft, as it was a 2003 redirect to Communist Party USA. Wikishovel (talk) 14:43, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • I wouldn't say to delete the article. Let's at least wait a bit and see if media outlets report on this. If they don't report anything in, say, a week, then we can delete. I personally don't think the article needs to be deleted instantly. Give it some time. This is a more minor story compared to everything else happening in the USA, and I don't blame the media for not instantly reporting on it. SSBelfastFanatic (talk) 14:48, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, give it a week for sources to come in. Zenphia1 (talk) 16:02, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed GyopoSeraph (talk) 10:46, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I've just deleted the 'controversy' section which was added very recently with an admission by the ip that they had no references. Someone with more knowledge on the subject may wish to look at all the other recent edits to decide what is (and isn't) vandalism,— Preceding unsigned comment added by Knitsey (talk • contribs) 23:37, 22 July 2024 (UTC)<diff>[reply]
  • Delete A fringe alt-right online sect has some of its leaders meet one day and make a website. That does not mean it is notable at all. If Party of Communists USA could not get an article, this "party" certainly should not, particularly considering that there is no proof this is actually a physical organization. Also, 75% of the signatures and organizations mentioned in its founding document either do not exist or publicly indicated that they never signed on to join this "party." The only reference which even mentions this organization is self-published. This has no place on Wikipedia. SociusMono1976 (talk) 00:50, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - This article keeps getting vanadalized Bubblesorg talk — Preceding undated comment added 01:39, 23 July 2024 (UTC)<diff>[reply]
  • Delete - This party is largely a social media phenomenon and not a notable political actor in its own right. Compare this to, for instance, DSA's ongoing influence in protest organizing, labor organizing, and electoral politics, or CPUSA's historical influence as a major source of radical action in the 20th century. Socialist Alternative has been significant in Seattle's local politics, and the PSL has done substantial protest organizing. On the other hand, ACP has yet to demonstrate any significance. At most, it might deserve a mention on Jackson Hinkle's page, maybe a mention on CPUSA's page if notability can be demonstrated (though I would even note that many of the locals listed as signatories for its founding publicly denied involvement; and still no media has reported on this "party" as far as I know). LaborHorizontal (talk) 02:24, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Honestly I have to agree with this sentiment. I say we give them a week, maybe two. If nothing comes of it, delete the article and make a brief mention on Hinkle's page. Madamepestilence (talk) 03:29, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Well I left a message in the discussion page of the article but I still have to say again, I dont get why you insist on this so much. It is just another Internet "movement" based on no serious ideology but frustration, which not really lacking in the current American political climax; I dont understand why you believe it can achieve anything. Based on how they are on Twitter, I hope they wont do anything in real life, these people are dangerous.
    Aside from all that, this article is self-published and not notable yet mean not notable and shouldnt be kept for any duration of time. The most worrying thing is this article can legitimize them as well as make precedent for future similiar article. NightJasian (talk) 12:21, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - A flash-in-the-pan event happening a day ago on some parts of political Twitter. No indication of importance. Stranfreid (talk) 02:51, 23 July 2024 (UTC)— Stranfreid (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
It doesn't appear to have any real chapters, some of it's claimed chapters have apparently come forward denying any association. I personally think delete until it's actually something real. PierreTheTsar (talk) 04:00, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, or at the very least draftify. A google search revealed no reliable coverage of this party. I don't have a Crystal Ball, so its possible that coverage of this party will emerge. Especially if they nominate a candidate a President for president. Esolo5002 (talk) 04:15, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The organization will obviously continue to grow, it just started. It is real. HDGVII (talk) 05:15, 23 July 2024 (UTC)— HDGVII (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Any source to back it up? NightJasian (talk) 11:32, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify unless there are more sources about the new fringe sect. Ahri Boy (talk) 08:16, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Nowhere near notable enough, no SIGCOV, no serious argument to keep. ser! (chat to me - see my edits) 09:49, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The party has been confirmed to exist by the CPUSA themselves. GyopoSeraph (talk) 10:50, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Seeing a Party created "2 days ago" on Wikipedia is really bad. Do we know who created this page, is it a member of this Party. The US and the world have millions of political parties, that come and go yearly, in real life and on the Internet. This party has nothing notable and definitely, most of us are here because we saw them on X. We can delete this and re-create it if they ever have an infuence. NightJasian (talk) 11:25, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete For lack of significant coverage in independent, reliable sources showing notability of the subject required for an article. That the organization verifiably exists is alone not enough to have an article without any notable coverage.--Yaksar (let's chat) 11:47, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've also speedily moved and redirected this title back to the actual notable subject it previously pointed to, as this was a reasonable term for users searching for that subject, particularly during a high profile election, and should not instead be used as promotion for a non-notable organization. I've added a parenthetical disambiguation for the time being.--Yaksar (let's chat) 11:52, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've reverted your good faith move: please don't move an article in the middle of a deletion discussion. If it's kept, it can be moved when the discussion ends. Wikishovel (talk) 12:31, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Asking genuinely, not in disagreement -- is that a policy? I do believe I've seen plenty of move discussions where a subject created over the title or redirect to an actual primary topic gets moved, rather than get a guaranteed 7 days as the new primary topic, but perhaps I'm mixing up.--Yaksar (let's chat) 12:37, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
quoting WP:AFD:

While there is no prohibition against moving an article while an AfD or deletion review discussion is in progress, editors considering doing so should realize such a move can confuse the discussion greatly, can preempt a closing decision, can make the discussion difficult to track, and can lead to inconsistencies when using semi-automated closing scripts.

Wikishovel (talk) 12:45, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would also oppose a merge to the notable party's page unless there is actual independent discussion in reliable sources (and regardless, it would perhaps be more suitable for the page of the party's founders, should that sourcing emerge).--Yaksar (let's chat) 12:09, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There is currently no significant coverage of this organisation in independent, reliable sources. The only sources that actually discuss it are its own posts on its website and social media. Two of the sources this article cites don't even mention it. Merging is a non-starter, as there aren't currently any independent, reliable sources that can be used on other articles either. --Grnrchst (talk) 12:31, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable enough to warrant its own page. Of the four sources linked, only two are actually related to the "party", and one of them is a Twitter/X post. May warrant a mention in the Jackson Hinkle page, but no more than that. Sisuvia (talk) 13:47, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not notable and self-promoting. Garnet Moss (talk) 15:02, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The lack of any secondary sources about the party itself rather than the figures in it blatantly violates notability criteria. A discussion can be had about potentially including it as a section in another article once/if there are secondary sources. Quinby (talk) 15:25, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, don't even merge: This party doesn't have any reliable reporting except from primary sources, it is not even notable enough to be merged into History of CPUSA or Jackson Hinkle. Personisinsterest (talk) 15:26, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Merge Though this organization has some mildly notable figures behind it (which are notable for internet activism as opposed to IRL work), this org has not done anything significant, has not raised significant money, has not produced significant thinkers or unique thought. It hardly deserves an article, especially given the lack of anything happening in actual CPUSA. I do feel like the ACP for now might be a worthy footnote in the CPUSA page. However, this shouldn't have an article for the same reason we don't give every 20k follower X influencer an article unless theyve actually done something significant — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lohengrin03 (talk • contribs) 16:51, 23 July 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/American_Communist_Party&oldid=1236680766"