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! 19:43, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FightBack (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

This publication does not appear to meet the requirements of WP:N. I undertook Google searches of "Fightback" and "Canada", but came across no independent coverage of the subject, other than at the Trotskyists' own sites at marxist.ca and marxist.com. Previous attempts by other editors to tag this article for improvement have been deleted. Skeezix1000 (talk) 21:14, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. —Skeezix1000 (talk) 21:14, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, as nominator. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 21:14, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 22:31, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per lack of verifiability via independent secondary sources. MuZemike (talk) 00:53, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Notability not established. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:18, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Why delete this article when Wikipedia has plenty of articles on (even more) obscure Trotskyist groups? (eg New Socialist Group, Socialist Action (Canada), Trotskyist League of Canada, etc.) Is it because an anonymous person deleted the improvement tags? That hardly seems fair. Why not just put the tags back and block that user if they try it again? Sickle and Hammer (talk) 19:41, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The question is not the relative level of obscurity of the article subject. The issue is whether this article subject is sufficiently notable and verifiable to meet the requirements of Wikipedia policies at WP:N and WP:V. The actions of the anons really have nothing to do with the deletion proposal -- the reference in the nomination was intended simply to indicate that the article was tagged and no reliable, third-party sources resulted. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 20:27, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, the other articles you have mentioned might also qualify for deletion on the same basis. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 20:29, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Added more references, including a Mexican newspaper Sickle and Hammer (talk) 22:21, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for taking the time to locate the references. They are very helpful for the purposes of this discussion, and your efforts are appreciated.

I have reviewed the third-party sources provided in the article, however, and I am not convinced that they meet the requirements of WP:V and WP:N, and in particular of WP:SOURCES. My reasoning is as follows:

* Two of the sources are merely directories of publications (Independent Media, Broadleft), and inclusion in a directory is typically not considered to be coverage in independent sources sufficient to satisfy WP:N (for the same reason a local business would not meet Wikipedia's inclusion guidelines merely because it is listed in the yellow pages and other business directories).

* Three of the sources (Hands of Venezuala, the Celia Hart piece, and the Spanish-language article) do not appear to even mention Fightback (although I do not speak Spanish, so I could have missed a specific reference in that article). Although the Fightback publication might have been involved in the events mentioned in those third-party sources, for a source to satisfy WP:V it needs to explictly refer to the article subject.

* Finally, two of the references do mention Fightback - the International Communist League piece very briefly in passing, and the Bolshevik.org piece in more detail. Both references are critical of Fightback, so arguably constitute sources independent of the article subject (which is good). I am just not sure that these two sources constitute the "significant coverage" in "reliable sources" that is required by WP:N, esp. since the first source contains only the briefest of mentions of Fightback in a presentation that addresses other topics (the recent elections) rather than the subject at hand. I would prefer to see some non-opinion piece sources from the non-Communist media to satisfy myself that the article subject is notable outside a select group of people.

For those reasons, I do not feel that the new sources are sufficient for me to support the retention of this article. Having said that, I hope other editors chime in with their thoughts. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 14:19, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Hammer and Sickle made the article worth being in wikipedia as he added sources etc . I think there is no reason for it to be deleted now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.15.233.189 (talk) 06:22, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• — 74.15.233.189 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Note: This IP account has not made any other contributions to Wikipedia except for this AfD comment. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 13:20, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Many of the sources cited fail verification, as they do not actually mention the involvement of Fightback in the events the article claims Fightback helped organize. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 12:33, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• KeepIndeed the article that I wrote was pretty shitty as it was my first article and I am a bit biased I am sorry.But now if you see the article with the additions by Hammer Sickle it looks great and it is worth keeping on wikipedia —Preceding unsigned comment added by Trotskyistmaniac (talk • contribs) 15:43, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• — Trotskyistmaniac (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Thanks for the comment, and I am glad you were able to participate in the discussion, but unfortunately "looks great" and "worth keeping" are not the relevant criteria (see WP:ATA). It would be really helpful if you provided some input into the WP:N issue, and what can be done to demonstrate the notability of the subject in accordance with WP:N and WP:V. Feel free to ask me any question on my talk page.--Skeezix1000 (talk) 20:16, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey just to reply to Skeezix, I think Fightback is one of the most notable Marxist organizations in Canada. Especially in Quebec after the Celia Hart and other events which I cited in my original article. We are not merely talking about a newspaper but about a section of the International Marxist Tendency with tens of activists. I will cite some verifiable sources and add some stuff which are going to be verifiable. I might have some problems but I ll figure it out(I m not that computer literate) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Trotskyistmaniac (talk • contribs) 03:15, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Another reply to Skeenzix and sorry about not using the reply thing properly. The Celia Hart page on handsoffvenezuela.com does mention fightback: " in collaboration with the International Marxist Tendency". Fightback is referred to as the IMT because it is the IMT section in Canada. I don't expect you to be an expert on Trotsyist organizations but all the sources provided have references to fightback either as "FightBack" either as the International Marxist Tendency. An organization that makes a meeting of 200 people is notable and the fact that this comes from a third party source makes it verifiable.

Also this http://www.marxist.com/conference-trotskys-ideas-venezuela-cuba.htm

http://www.marxist.com/miners-memorial-day.htm

I dont know if these are third party sources though as they come from www.marxist.com which is the website of the international , although it is not the website of fightback.

Also this is the whole section of articles related to fightback on www.marxist.com some of them might be good to see the verifiability and notability of fightback or the canadian section of the IMT http://www.marxist.com/canada.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by Trotskyistmaniac (talk • contribs) 03:33, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Same thing applies for the Mexican newspaper article. It does not mention Fightback (the newspaper), but it does mention the "Tendencia Marxista Internacional" -- the International Marxist Tendency. Sickle and Hammer (talk) 06:49, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No need to apologize for the formatting of your reply -- your contributions are welcome. I have, however, indented your comments so that they are a bit easier to follow. Unfortunately, my views haven't changed. A couple of brief third party pieces on meetings of the Canadian chapter of IMT does not speak to the notability of the subject of this article, which is a newspaper. In my opinion, these sources justify adding a couple of sentences to the main International Marxist Tendency article about activities in Canada, but are insufficient to meet WP:N and have a separate article on the Canadian newspaper or chapter. To me, the fact that the sources and their relevance need to be explained reinforces the view that they are insufficient. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 15:57, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

kk sufficient *Keep age. Not ideal coverage, but as much as can be expected for topics in this area. We have always been breoad minded in accepting articles on political parties, and we should do similarly for their newspapers. DGG (talk) 22:37, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• So after establishing the verifiability and notability of the article can we please remove the delete thingy from the article? 74.15.223.104 (talk) 21:40, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• — 74.15.223.104 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Comment I recommend copying the article in case it's deleted. If it is deleted you can perhaps integrate some of the information in a related article, for example in the article on the International Marxist Tendency (assuming such an article exists, I haven't checked). I'm not sure this article meets Wikipedia's guidelines for ntoability. I tend to favor including newspapers, but this one is rather young and doesn't seem to be well established with a substantial readership (ie. not notable). Others disagree, so we'll see what happens. I've offered some suggestions for improving the article on its talk page, but keep in mind it may still be deleted even if these improvements are made, they don't really address the notability problem which can only be resolved by including evidence of substantial coverage by reliable media. The tag regarding deletion is removed after this debate is closed and a determination made on its outcome. Again, the big problem as far as whether to delete the article or not is that this newspaper (and its related organization which isn't well explained in the article) doesn't appear to have been covered in any reliable media sources as a substantial subject. That's the standard (generally) as I understand it for including articles. ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:35, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete-as per above Imperat§ r^(Talk) 18:02, 23 November 2008 (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.