Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Socialist Alternative (Malaysia)

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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 09:36, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Socialist Alternative (Malaysia)

Socialist Alternative (Malaysia) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:ORG as there is a lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. The only coverage is in socialist publications, which of course are not going to be reliable sources for the purposes of the notability of this group. Mkativerata (talk) 19:26, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

• Keep

WP:ORG provides no mention of socialist publications being unreliable sources. An organization is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. In this case the secondary source, Committee for a Workers' International, has given plenty of coverage to Socialist Alternative (Malaysia)at http://www.socialistworld.net/ As an international body it is reliable on these matters and as the secretariat of a federation is a secondary source to Socialist Alternative which is the primary source.

At WP:GNG When creating new content about a notable topic, editors should consider how best to help readers understand it. Sometimes, understanding is best achieved by presenting the material on a dedicated standalone page, but it is not required that we do so. The page Committee for a Workers' International lists all affiliated parties and provides links to stand alone pages for each. Socialist Alternative (Malaysia) follows this precedent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vahvistus (talk • contribs) 00:05, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

I have edited the article to give the official website of the party instead of their blog. I have also added their logo, the name of their paper and a link to it. I hope that helps. Vahvistus (talk) 00:12, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:48, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:48, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:48, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:45, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

• Delete - I'm not convinced that coverage by the Committee for a Workers' International of Socialist Alternative (Malaysia) would be independent enough for the purposes of WP:GNG. That said, I can't actually find an instance of coverage by the Committee for a Workers' International of Socialist Alternative (Malaysia). I've searched that site and beyond some coverage of other issues that might have originated with people who are also affiliated with Socialist Alternative, I couldn't find anything. St★lwart¹¹¹ 03:32, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

• keep - There is coverage here [1] but Stalwart111 is correct in that they refer to CWI Malaysia not socialist alternative. This may be their preferred translation from Malay into English but it is the same organisation as evidenced by the link to the blog. The mainstream press is unlikely to give coverage to a small Trotskyist organisation but this does not make it less notable on its own terms. They are known within the socialist and labour movement of Malaysia [2] and as an organised current of thought will have an influence greater than their size. Vahvistus (talk) 20:20, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

No need to !vote twice. The CWI owns that news outlet - they are not the same organisation and if there is some suggestion that they are then there is no way we can use that obviously non-independent source to substantiate notability. That it hasn't received coverage in mainstream press absolutely does make it less notable. That's what WP:GNG and WP:ORGDEPTH are all about. St★lwart¹¹¹ 22:33, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

CWI Malaysia and Socialist Alternative (Malaysia) are the same organisation and these are translations from the Malaysian name Sosialis Alternatif. I used the form which was used at Committee for a Workers' International. The CWI have their own house style for example The Socialist Party in Ireland is referred to as CWI in Ireland republic. The socialist world website of the CWI has a list of articles on Malaysia going back to 2005. From 2008 onwards the articles refer to CWI Malaysia but the link provided goes to the blog of Sosialis Alternatif While searching for references I found the website of sosialis alternatif which I used in the info box. From this website I could see that they publish a newspaper, Solidariti Pekerja. It is possible to view the newspapers in pdf form and on page 12 of issue 7 is a mention of CWI Malaysia. Sosialis Alternatif is affiliated to the committee for a workers' international but they are independent of each other as can be seen from other affiliates breaking the link and still existing as organisations for example Scottish Militant Labour or Nava Sama Samaja Party.

I have increased notability by adding Solidariti Pekerja to List of newspapers in Malaysia under the Malaysian language heading with a link to Socialist Alternative (Malaysia). I am following the style of the Committee for a Workers' International wiki page in giving each affiliate its own page. I was hoping it could be expanded by editors with more knowledge or Malaysian language skills. Vahvistus (talk) 11:43, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Blogs and articles from affiliate organisations and from the organisation itself do not confer notability. We need significant coverage in multiple reliable sources, independent of the subject. I don't think we have a single one right now. Adding the article to lists of other things here on Wikipedia doesn't "increase notability" unfortunately. St★lwart¹¹¹ 22:45, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

I have added another section with references to increase notability.

I would like to bring these guidelines from Wikipedia:Guide to deletion to your attention:

Before nominating a recently created article, please consider that many good articles started their Wikilife in pretty bad shape. Unless it is obviously a hopeless case, consider sharing your reservations with the article creator, mentioning your concerns on the article's discussion page, and/or adding a "cleanup" template, instead of bringing the article to AfD. Vahvistus (talk) 01:54, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Well, I didn't bring it to AFD but I agree that it should be here. Without any independent sources, this is a hopeless case; an article that should never have been created about an organisation that simply doesn't meet our criteria for inclusion. St★lwart¹¹¹ 03:07, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

There are two independent sources, the Socialist Party of Australia and the Socialist World site of the Committee for a Workers' International. I have noted that Mkativerata does not consider socialist sources to be reliable but I dispute this. I also note St★lwart¹¹¹ view that this is "an article that should never have been created about an organisation that simply doesn't meet our criteria for inclusion." and would ask you to consider these guidelines from Wikipedia:Guide to deletion.

First do the necessary homework and look for sources yourself, and invite discussion on the talk page by using the ... template, if you are disputing the notability of an article's subject. The fact that you haven't heard of something, or don't personally consider it worthy, are not criteria for deletion. You must look for, and demonstrate that you couldn't find, any independent sources of sufficient depth.

Vahvistus (talk) 12:33, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, we call that WP:BEFORE. It would seem Mkativerata did everything required before nominating this. For article creators we have WP:BURDEN - it's not our job to prove something is not notable, it's your job to prove it is. Vague statements like "it's notable among socialists" or "people in other niche groups know about this niche group" are pointless. More sources from the CWI get us no closer and the Socialist Party of Australia aren't a reliable source, let alone an independent one. What we need is coverage from those not connected to the subject - newspapers, magazines, websites, books, academic journals and papers, etc. Just posting more links to articles from connected people is a waste of time. So far the total number of independent reliable sources remains zero. St★lwart¹¹¹ 12:43, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

I have added another source which I again contend is independent notwithstanding its affiliation to the same federation as Socialist Alternative (Malaysia). It is a newspaper with an editorial board and has been published for a number of years. The statement it supports is not outlandish Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sourcesWP:CONTEXTMATTERS asks that:

Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made in the Wikipedia article and is an appropriate source for that content.

It seems to me that a socialist newspaper would be an entirely appropriate source for details about a socialist organisation in another country. If you think that they are secretly all one organisation contrary to their own internal constitutions then that is for you to prove.

I have looked at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes which says "Leaders of registered political parties at the national or major sub-national (state, province, prefecture, etc.) level are usually considered notable regardless of that party's degree of electoral success." If the leader of the party is notable then surely the party itself is notable. Vahvistus (talk) 21:15, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

You're clutching at straws now. It's not a "political party" (in which elections has it fielded candidates?), it's a political action group. The Socialist Party of Malaysia is a political party, with which this group is affiliated. Besides, that guideline had no bearing on WP:ORGDEPTH. It's clear that source is about the PSM, not the subject in question, from even the most basic of translations. There's nothing wrong, per se, with "socialist" sources but they still have to give the organisation coverage and they have to be more independent that those run by the same group or their close (local) affiliates. In the United States, there would be plenty of coverage for local Republican Party branches or Tea Party collectives in right-wing blogs and local party magazines. But that doesn't make those branches notable unless they have done something to receive broader coverage. Anyway, I'm done. We can leave it to others to judge whether those sources are sufficient. St★lwart¹¹¹ 22:25, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Delete - non-notable communist-front splinter sect; website consists of a few blogs posts back in August, then "dead-air" since (my guess: school is back in session).--Раціональне анархіст (talk) 22:39, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

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.