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. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 05:19, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Militant Left (Ireland) (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)

No demonstration of meeting notability per GNG. Have never won or held any notable elected position. At best a tenuous link to a single councillor who served a single term on a low-level local government council, which even CWI themselves acknowledge didn't actually run on behalf of Militant Left ([1],[2]). No Reliable Sources appear present to justify any noteworthiness.

Should be deleted or redirected to CWI (2019) Rambling Rambler (talk) 15:30, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, and Ireland. Rambling Rambler (talk) 15:30, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge and redirect to Committee for a Workers' International (2019). As an WP:ATD. (Subject org, effectively a "branch" of CWI formerly known as "CWI Ireland", hasn't been seen sufficient coverage in independent sources. To the extent that stand-alone notability is not established. What coverage there has been seems to be mostly in sources associated with CWI and/or other CWI "branches". In Enlgand, Scotland, etc. Even establishing basic facts (about the orgs formation/etc) necessitates reliance on primary sources. Which is far from ideal. The subject here, the Irish org, could easily be covered WP:WITHIN article on larger/parent org. With an appropriate redirect. Per WP:ATD-R.) Guliolopez (talk) 20:04, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• • • I think we should KEEP this entry. While the group might be small or marginal, that alone should not be the reason to erase their existence. If Rambling Rambler has doubts about the functionality of the group, it would be far better to add that (with reliant or primary sources) in the entry than delete it entirely.

02:00, 17 August 2024 (UTC)02:00, 17 August 2024 (UTC)~ 2600:1702:60:1B80:2C42:87C6:AFDA:FB87 (talk) 02:00, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

While the group might be small or marginal, that alone should not be the reason to erase their existence

If Rambling Rambler has doubts about the functionality of the group, it would be far better to add that (with reliant or primary sources) in the entry than delete it entirely.

Both of these claims literally fail WP:GNG, which requires a standalone article to be based upon "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject."

So yes, my argument for Delete is sound and supported by policy. Rambling Rambler (talk) 14:53, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or Merge to Committee for a Workers' International (2019) if that article is itself not deleted before the end of this discussion. Yue🌙 05:55, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'd like to close this as Merge or Redirect to Committee for a Workers' International (2019) but this article is at AFD, too. Maybe that discussion should close first.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:23, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or Merge to Committee for a Workers' International (2019). Spleodrach (talk) 16:11, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The proposed Merge target article is now being merged to Committee for a Workers' International (1974). Would this be an appropriate Merge target article for this article, too? Or is there a preferable second choice?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:53, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz that target would be inappropriate as this branch was not created until after the split in CWI, so is a non-notable section of a non-notable organisation (CWI (2019)) so should be deleted now that CWI (2019) has been merged. Rambling Rambler (talk) 23:52, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for the clarification, Rambling Rambler, I don't know much about these organizations. Meanwhile, over the past couple of hours, the article at Committee for a Workers' International (1974) has now been turned into a redirect, too. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:32, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Liz, I’ll get that reversed. Seems to be someone acting on their own volition. Rambling Rambler (talk) 09:10, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  This has now been reversed, though this page should still be deleted with no redirect as this section was not a member of the original Committee for a Workers' International (1974) Rambling Rambler (talk) 09:47, 30 August 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.