Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Socialist Alternative (England, Wales & Scotland)

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 keep. Consensus is that the article should remain. (non-admin closure) Enos733 (talk) 15:29, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Socialist Alternative (England, Wales & Scotland)

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

No evidence of any notability, only been written about in far-left minor publications (note: the Weekly Worker link[1] does not address this group directly), but not in reliable, independent sources. A fringe group with no political results or importance so far, and which has failed to get real attention since the split. Fram (talk) 10:24, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 10:24, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 10:24, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 10:24, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For reference to repeat what I commented when removing WP:PROD - this is a stub which requires further work, however even in its current form meets notability test. Multiple reliable independent secondary sources have been provided. For the two additional comments: the Weekly Worker link references CWI Majority which is noted in the article and "failed to get real attention since the split" WP:NTEMP seems relevant. Sirrontail (talk) 11:10, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It didn't get attention from RS then, and it hasn't received attention since. Right below NTEMP is WP:SUSTAINED... My comment about the Weekly Worker is because that is the best source of the lot, but it isn't about the subject, so doesn't help for notability. Fram (talk) 12:01, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There has been coverage in local newspapers which I found after a simple search and have added to the article.Vahvistus (talk) 20:39, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that, apart from one article from Salford and some passing mentions, you also added articles which aren't about the British party, but about the international one, e.g. this and this. Fram (talk) 07:34, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Clearly notable, mentioned in several local newspaper articles which are reputable secondary sources — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yevgeni Preobrazhensky (talk • contribs) 11:55, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep To make clear I believe this article should not be deleted, the reasons I previously posted stand, but it has now been substantially improved, with a significant number of independent secondary sources, referring to Socialist Alternative's work across the country. If it is still believed there are issues these should be dealt with via normal editing or cleanup tags rather than deletion WP:CONRED. I'd also suggest C2 should have been considered prior to the AfD process being started. Sirrontail (talk) 14:19, 5 April 2022 (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.