The result was delete. As I discussed in a previous deletion debate, there are two types of debate on Wikipedia; those in areas with objective standards, where arguments are to be made with reference to those standards, and those in areas without such standards, where argument is emotive or subjective in tone. It is the latter area which causes the most trouble for administrators, the most debate, the most confusing-looking results, and the most appeals, counter-appeals and counter-counter-appeals to the eventual result. Despite how confusing this result may look given the arguments below, it is not a debate which fits into the latter category. The notability and coverage of articles is something that has objective standards, and the fact that those commentators arguing for "keep" chose to use subjective arguments with no proper reference to our policies does not mean that these standards are to be ignored.
User:Carrite and User:DGG make the argument that the movement as a whole has coverage - and that as such, every element of the area should be included in a dedicated article. Patently, this is not the case. The argument that "because WP:ATHLETE allows for the inclusion of people just because we can verify their existence, the same should be true of companies" is also incorrect; ignoring, for a second, that we cannot prove this organisation exists (at least, neither the article nor this discussion shows as such) the ATHLETE policy exists because we work on the assumption that someone playing for, say, Real Madrid, does have sources on them in reliable sources. It does not mean that anyone, regardless of their athletic level, can qualify for inclusion; it requires a demonstration that they have played to a fully professional level. If we transfer this guideline across (which we have not) there is no reason to suggest that this committee has "played" at a "fully professional level".
User:Mia-etol makes a similar argument, ableit with implicit accusations of some sort of bias, and the idea that keeping this article would be necessary because the alternative is to demonstrate that Wikipedia is biased against marxism. This is not the case; our notability standards are objective in nature. Only if we were to adopt the subjective standards that people here seem to be arguing for would outright political bias really be possible. Our standards require academic or media coverage - any bias, therefore, reflects only the biases in mainstream thinking. The result of this all is that nobody has actually addressed the nominator's concern, as is their job as someone arguing contrarily. Asked to argue whether X=1 or X=2, they have instead tried to prove that mathematics doesn't apply. This is not a productive way to spend time, and it is not a productive attitude to take to discussions based on objectivity. Ironholds (talk) 00:59, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No evidence of notability. Superheroes Fighting (talk) 03:26, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Since this is one of a series of articles of a mass deletion effort, I'm going to state my case once again and will copy-paste it below — it holds for one and all. This is an encyclopedia. Certain things are considered automatically encyclopedia-worthy at Wikipedia: degree-granting universities, secondary schools, numbered roads, towns, species of plants and animals, and so on and so forth. In my earnest belief, political parties and their youth sections passing the standard of WP:Verifiability should automatically meet the standard of encyclopedia-worthiness, without regard to size or ideology. These are the subject of serious scholarship. The Hoover Institution, closely linked to Stanford University, in 1991 published the 25th annual edition of its Yearbook of International Communist Affairs, recording the history and activities of left wing parties like this. The scholar Robert J. Alexander authored an 1100 page volume called International Trotskyism, 1929-1985: A Documented Analysis of the Movement, published by Duke University Press and held by something like 180 libraries worldwide. There have been monographs written on Trotskyism in America (Constance Myers, The Prophet's Army: Trotskyists in America, 1928-1941, Greenwood Press, 1977; Breitman, LeBlanc, and Wald, Trotskyism in the United States: Historical Essays and Reconsiderations, Humanities Press, 1996) and Trotskyism in the UK (John Callaghan, British Trotskyism: Theory and Practice, Basil Blackwell, 1984). Yes, little sects such as this are tiny; no, you're not going to find stories on them in the New York Times. But they are the subject of scholarly inquiry and deserve notability per se on that basis, just like insects and professional football players are instantly notable if their existence is verified. There is no point to this mass deletion effort. It will annihilate information to no good purpose — serious information that BELONGS in a comprehensive encyclopedia. It's time to Ignore All Rules to defend the quality of the encyclopedia and further, to amend the inadequate current notability guidelines for such organizations. And no, I'm not a Trotskyist and I don't play one on TV, if there were a similar series of attacks on right wing fringe parties I'd say the same thing. Carrite (talk) 16:50, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]