Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Laski (2nd nomination)

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
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 redirect to Communist Party USA (Marxist–Leninist). First, I'd like to thank the nominator and others for explaining the context behind this nomination. There is a clear consensus here that the article should not exist in its current form. There is some divergence around whether the article should be deleted or redirected but the prevailing view seems to favour a redirect, as suggested in the nomination. WaggersTALK 08:16, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Laski

AfDs for this article:

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

Michael Laski (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)

Insufficient sourcing available for a stand-alone article, article should be redirected to Communist_Party_USA_(Marxist–Leninist). See additional message that I will shortly add below Elemimele (talk) 16:42, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment This AfD results from a disagreement at the article itself. Scope creep and an IP editor, 72.95.130.125, both attempted to convert the article to a redirect on the grounds that insufficient sourcing was available. Ʃx and Hey man im josh reverted these changes; after a couple of reverts, Josh sensibly suggested that as the redirect was disputed, it should be discussed at AfD. The article was then nominated by Laski22, who almost immediately withdrew the nomination on grounds that Google books "turned up more than expected", and in consequence, Pppery closed the first AfD; Scope creep, who had no idea the AfD had even happened, then restored the redirect, which is possibly contrary to the wishes of Josh and Laski22. I am therefore re-creating a new AfD so the situation can be resolved properly (because I don't know how to re-open closed AfDs). Sorry about the confusion! Elemimele (talk) 16:54, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry for creating confusion. I'll stay out of this.Laski22 (talk) 17:31, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    As Elemimele mentioned, I reverted the first redirect change as I mistook it for an attempt at blanking while patrolling Recent Changes. This led to a discussion on my talk page where an AfD nomination was also recommended. Like Laski22, I apologize for the confusion and unneeded revision history.
    There is some mention on the article’s moderately vandalized talk page about notability. With that said however, I will also remain out of further discussions on this topic and the article. Thank you, Ʃx talk|contribs 18:51, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Seems reasonable. scope_creepTalk 18:03, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to consider redirect option.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:27, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

sourcing? see Comrade Laski, C.P.U.S.A.(M.-L)
Didion, Joan. Slouching Towards Bethlehem: Essays (p. 61). Open Road Media. Kindle Edition. Tinkwelborn (talk) 01:59, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Since this AFD (and the first one) arose from a dispute over whether this article should become a redirect, I'd like to see some consideration of this option, especially from those discussing this option on the article talk page.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:01, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep It's well-sourced now and clearly meets the GNG. Central and Adams (talk) 10:31, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Having checked a couple of them, they seem to be mostly passing mention, proving he exists but not much else. I've not checked the Joan Didion essay. scope_creepTalk 12:23, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The Joan Didion article "Comrade Laski, C.P.U.S.A.(M.-L)" is very detailed and constitutes siginificant coverage by one of the worlds best essayists. scope_creepTalk 12:26, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Which in particular do you consider "passing mentions"? Everything I added has at least a paragraph on Laski and some of them are solely about him.Central and Adams (talk) 12:27, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A paragraph is passing comment, its not significant. I never saw anything that really in-depth. Even the Didion article states he is obscure, and there is barely any biographical info in that article and she set out to meet him, in what is essentially a glorified interview in essay format. scope_creepTalk 13:56, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A paragraph in the NYT or LAT is not a passing mention, probably a para anywhere in RS isn't. A passing mention is like the people who were arrested with Laski, where there's an article about Laski's arrest and then at the end it says A, B, and C were also arrested. In any case, as I said, a number of the sources I added are solely about Laski. Please be specific about which sources only contain passing mentions. Also, you say that you checked two of them. There are currently fourteen sources, so your sample size seems too small.Central and Adams (talk) 13:59, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Certain papers have a duty to report the court proceedings, folks get reported whether they are notable or not. I think there is probably more than borderline but quantity doesn't mean quality and single paragraphs are not significant coverage. Certainly if there is a quantity of it per policy, it can deemed to be passing
WP:SIGCOV, which I think is the case here, but is all very ropey. scope_creepTalk 14:04, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
Nothing I added was routine coverage of court proceedings. If a paper runs a whole article on a misdemeanor arrest it's a good sign that there's something notable about the subject. If they do this repeatedly for the subject's various activities it adds up to notability. It would be more useful if you could identify actual sources that you think are deficient rather than theorizing about what they might say. Please help advance the argument by citing facts instead.Central and Adams (talk) 14:06, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep redirection to CPUSA(ML) is not quite correct, because Laski was involved with a particular split of the party (both splits kept the party name, but published party newspapers under different titles). Laski is probably one of the most (in)famous people in the US New Communist Movement, sadly for his antics in losing a cache of party funds at a Nevada casino, rather than for any particurlarly insightful contribution to Marxism-Leninism. Subject of Didion's portrait is a more than reasonable indication that Laski is notable and, FWIW, Didion frames Laski's obscurity in terms of marginalisation (ie he's been denied attention) rather than irrelevance (note her words: "I'm comfortable with the Michael Laski's of this world, with those who live outside, rather than in, those in whom the sense of dread is so acute that they turn to extreme and doomed committments..."). There's more than passing mention of Laski in Gerald Horne's Fire this Time: The Watts Uprising and the 1960s, discussion of the casino incident on Lib-Com, there's also extensive reportage available via newspapers.com around Laski's claims regarding the CPUSA(ML) role in the
    1965 Watts riots and their subsequent debunking. Passes the GNG. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 04:09, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Redirect to
    WP:INHERITED. MrsSnoozyTurtle 02:56, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete. From my reading of the article in its current form he fails
    WP:POL for continuous and lasting coverage. (He's not an elected official but is a political activist.) The 2015 Observer citation only has passing mention. Many of the citations are from publications in the mid-1960s which indicates that his acitivies were limited to those years. Running a politically-orientated bookstore is not normally criteria for notability. Blue Riband► 23:34, 22 August 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Michael_Laski_(2nd_nomination)&oldid=1106121084"