Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Social-Democratic Workingmen's Party of North America

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The result was Speedy keep as nomination withdrawn per WP:HEY. (non-admin closure) Fermiboson (talk) 16:57, 11 December 2023 (UTC)‎[reply]

[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)

NORG fail. I do think this is borderline, and a bit of digging is required. The detailed explanation post will come as a long reply. Fermiboson (talk) 04:55, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and United States of America. Fermiboson (talk) 04:55, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 04:58, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So, there are sources covering this party. Both sources in the article appear to be Marxist blogs, which is neither independent nor RS. Most Google hits are also to blogs, catalogues, or "social-democrating workingmen's party of [somewhere else]", or those of the same name founded on a different year. There are, however, three academic sources which could potentially be usable. The issues are enumerated below.

Source 1: Stedman, Murray S. “‘Democracy’ in American Communal and Socialist Literature.” Journal of the History of Ideas, vol. 12, no. 1, 1951, pp. 147–54. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.2307/2707542. This source is probably neutral and RS. It is a part of an overview of the evolution of Socialist rhetoric in the US throughout the 1800s to pre-WWII. The party is mentioned in the following paragraph only, which seems like a passing mention:

Students of political history will recall that in 1876 an organ known as the Social-Democratic Workingmen's Party of North America was formed. It is of interest from the point of view of this inquiry because of its name. Aside from the title of the party, the party constitution and platform contained no references to "democracy".

Source 2: Foner, Philip, "The Workingmen's Party of the United States: A History of the First Marxist Party in the Americas." Studies in Marxism, vol. 14, 1984. MEP Publications. [1] This source, as the title suggests, is entirely about the party itself. I would lean towards this source being usable, as the academic appears to be reputable and I don't see any immediate evidence of non-independence of the source. We do however find ourselves in the unusual situation where there is an entire book about something, and nothing else but primary sources, which is not GNG. A quick scroll through the bibliography of the book shows most of the references to be either about Marx/Engels and the general social situation at the time, or primary sources from the party and its successors.
Source 3: [2] Ghent, W. J. "Socialism: A Historical Sketch" This is one of a series of pamphlets explicitly "written by socialist authors", so it is definitely a biased source bordering on ABOUTSELF. The book mentions workingmens' parties of various countries in great detail, but its mention of the American one appears to be limited to the following on p30:

During this twelve-year period Socialism overflowed from Germany jnto the other countries of Europe. In the United States it had already made a beginning. Indeed, the organized movement here, which has a continuous existence from the Social Democratic Workingmen's party of 1874, is, with the exception of the two German parties which united at Gotha, the oldest in the world. If, as suggested by Hillquit, it be dated from the formation of the General German Labor Association in New York (1868), it outdates the Bebel-Liebknecht wing of the German party (1869), leaving only the Lassalle wing (1863) with an earlier origin.

The book then goes on to talk about the various efforts at international collaboration of socialist parties, and does not really mention the article subject by name anymore. This also seems to be a bit of a passing mention.

It does seem that, apart from source 2, all the mentions of the party come as a brief note that they were the "first" in the US. Possibly a merge could be done into History of socialism in the United States? I'm not well versed enough in the topic to judge, but I am unable to find evidence that this meets GNG. Fermiboson (talk) 05:19, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Fermiboson::

I agree that the Social-Democratic Workingmen's Party of North America is in a grey zone of notability; I can't find any sources solely dedicated to discussing it, for example.

I've added a few additional sources to the article, including all those that you've included. The Foner citation, in particular, goes into detail about the history of the SDWP before its merger into the WPUS. Given that the SDWP was the first major step toward a Marxist socialist party in the United States, and given that its history ultimately helped shape the Socialist Party of America, I think it is a useful if short page for readers interested in early modern American socialism.

I would strongly recommend against deletion of the article in its current state.

Aside: I know it's not relevant to notability, but I would also add: For niche historical topics like this, basically the only resource the general public will have is Wikipedia. Scattered scholarly sources are worthless to a casual reader. SocDoneLeft (talk) 06:33, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply, and while I do agree that it is useful to have an article, as you noted, it isn't relevant to notability. I do think a merge may be the better option here. But I'll let you do more writing (and anyone who comes across this to give feedback) and if no one votes delete, I may be open to withdrawing the AfD nom after a while. Fermiboson (talk) 06:37, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep has significance and need more improvements. Freinland (talk) 07:41, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets WP:BASIC.--User:Namiba 11:49, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep beyond (I think, sorry if I missed a duplicate) what's already been provided, there's pretty decent coverage in What is socialism? An exposition and a criticism, with special reference to the movement in America and England, The Socialist Labor Party, 1876 to 1991: A Short History, The American Worker (Der amerikanische Arbeiter), and many mentions of members and their activities in the party in The Samuel Gompers papers. Skynxnex (talk) 14:57, 11 December 2023 (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.