Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Communist League (US)

The deletion of the Communist League (US) entry was falsely based on the premise that no outside information about the organization could be provided. This assertion is easily belied with a simple Google search for "Communist League". References to the Communist League can be found on blogs, news and information websites, and discussion forums. There are even some photos circulating of Communist League members at various events.

All of this information was available prior to the May 18, 2007, removal. Most of the photos and entries date as recently to that date as late March and early April.

One might think that this was simply a mistake if it was not for the fact that there is a significant amount of information out there to corroborate the Communist League's existence. So, one is left with the impression that the deletion was either a result of laziness on the part of those making such a judgment or a result of political discrimination.

The Communist League formally protests the removal of its entry from the Wikipedia website and demands its immediate reinstatement.

You formally protest it? This isn't the United Nations. The article was deleted because nobody could find independent, nontrivial, reliable sources about your organization. And, contrary to your assertion of laziness, it wasn't for lack of trying. The problem is that merely demonstrating a Google presence or coverage by blogs or by "news" sites that anyone can submit to (such as IndyMedia) is not sufficient to enable a balanced, informative article to be written about you. Your organization would need to be covered in books or in articles in newspapers or magazines (independent ones with a balanced viewpoint, not those of you or your rivals). The coverage would need to be nontrivial, meaning that your organization was the subject of such coverage, not merely mentioned therein. The coverage would also have to be in reliable sources, such as a book from a reputable publishing house or a daily newspaper. Some alternative newsweeklies such as the Village Voice are also considered reliable sources.

The deletion of this article was not due to "political discrimination." Wikipedia has an extensive entry on the Communist Party USA, because it has been extensively covered in independent, reliable sources. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 17:30, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you want, you could try deletion review. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 17:32, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So, in other words, only older and relatively respectable organizations are worthy of an entry on Wikipedia. Newer organizations and organizations that don't get coverage within the corporate-owned media, such as ours, can just be ignored and disappeared from the Wikiverse. Such standards and practices as you put forward here can only really be met by a small portion of political organizations in the world today. One has to wonder where Wikipedia is going with these kinds of standards, and what will become of its self-described reputation as a free-content encyclopedia.