Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Communist Platform (Italy)

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. The claim of extensive sources existing is not supported by the mention of any of these sources so I think those advocating Deletion have the stronger argument here. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:23, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Communist Platform (Italy)

[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)

A very small extra-parliamentary party mentioned at most in a few third-party sources and whose political activity is practically unknown. It doesn't seem to meet WP:GNG. Scia Della Cometa (talk) 20:16, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, and Italy. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:59, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. One of the several factions/parties emerged within/from the Communist Refoundation Party, this subject clearly deserves an article. The group has been active for about 15 years and has more than 6,000 hits in Google. Deleting this article would be a very bad precedent. This said, if regrettably there is no consensus on keeping the article, I hope we can at least merge it into Communist Refoundation Party. --Checco (talk) 16:15, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Checco your motivation is not valid, for the umpteenth time you repeat that Google Hits does not prove anything. This party has absolutely no 6,000 references.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 16:57, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:42, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Checco I invite you once again to correct at least your opinion, which cannot be considered valid. How can you just think this micro-group has 6000 hits?? How can you not know that the term "piattaforma comunista" can be used in 1000 different contexts? And, in any case, Quantity does not determine significance. It is the quality of the content that governs. (see Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Numerical facts) Could you tell me which of the WP:GNG principles (necessary to have a standalone article in wikipedia) this group meets? in my opinion not even one... --Scia Della Cometa (talk) 10:18, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also in this case, among all the sources on the web, the only mention in a fairly authoritative source is the book "La diaspora del comunismo italiano". It is quite clear that two words as common as "piattaforma" and "comunista" easily generate 6000 hits on Google (assuming that the only number of hits on Google has value in an Afd).--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 23:11, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This group fails WP:NGO as the scope of its activities is quite limited and it doesn't appear to get WP:ORGDEPTH-level coverage from multiple independent reliable sources. A redirect to the group that it splintered from is not reasonable given that the group is not mentioned whatsoever in the Communist Refoundation Party article, so I prefer deletion outright in this case. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 00:55, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Red-tailed hawk: The faction, later party, is not mentioned in the article on the PRC because all the factions and breakaway groups of that party have an article in Wikipedia. This should not be an exception. There are thousands of sources on it on the web (not just piattaforma + comunista, but for "piattaforma comunista") and, if it is not kept as a separate article, it should become a redirect to the PRC article. --Checco (talk) 05:56, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Checco: Can you provide three such sources? — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 06:01, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Hawk, if there are thousands of sources on it on the web then it should be less work to add three good sources to the article than its been for you to comment here. In my searching I'm having a hard time differentiating between "communist platform"/"piattaforma comunista" in the generic and the specific. All communist parties have a platform after all. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:51, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 03:49, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete From my reading, this is not the name of a political party. Their own web page reads: "Piattaforma Comunista - per il Partito Comunista del Proletariato d’Italia (PC-PCPI)" - which tells me that this is indeed the platform or the voice of the PCPI. I note that there is not an entry in the IT wikipedia under either moniker, and I do not find sources (other than their own web site) under either name. Lamona (talk) 03:44, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it is a member of an international organization Braganza (talk) 05:32, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - According to this source, Piattaforma Comunista is not a party, but a platform whose main task is "the theoretical and political struggle for the formation (making), in our country, of a strong communist party". It is therefore wrong to classify it as a political party. I can't find reliable secondary sources about this platform: Google searches provide only declaration form other communist parties or the platform itself , blogs entries, self-published materials and few passing references in regional or local newspapers (mainly linked to local strikes). I found in Google Books an excerpt of the book "La diaspora del comunismo italiano" (pages 80-81), but it just reports word by word some sentences from the platform's program, which can be found in the platform's website, so I'm not sure if it can be classified as a valid secondary source. P1221 (talk) 08:09, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, a search brought up no sources that would lead to a GNG pass. Devonian Wombat (talk) 08:25, 23 September 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.