Revolutionary Communist Party (UK, 2024): Lack of independent reliable sources.  Almost every source is from either marxist.com, socialist.net, marxist.red or another website affiliated with this group.  Wellington Bay ( talk ) 01:58, 29 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations , Politics , United Kingdom ,  and Scotland .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 02:40, 29 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete almost everything is a source linked to them, and those that aren't are for other groups they're linked to (notability is not inherited).  I wasn't able to find anything from a WP:BEFORE to show WP:SIGCOV from reliable sources Shaws username .  talk .  14:19, 29 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Shaws username This is likely because it's a very new change (which iirc hasn't actually even been implemented yet. I've heard this party will officially form on May 1) Genabab ( talk ) 18:22, 29 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] That sounds like it's a case of WP:TOOSOON , I would consider draftifying it as an atd, but given that it was renamed and old content moved I think moving/restoring the old content back so it has it's edit history makes more sense, and then a page can be created for the 2024 RCP if/when it has the coverage for notability Shaws username .  talk .  19:31, 1 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Revert as Hemmers has decribed below, what's happened has baffled me slightly.  Shaws username .  talk .  19:10, 1 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I’m glad it’s not just me that’s baffled.  I started off on “delete”, and then rewrote my reply twice as I dug through the edit history and became increasingly bemused!  Hemmers ( talk ) 19:05, 2 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Very few sources not linked to the  party, no demonstration of notability.  AnOpenBook ( talk ) 15:30, 29 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Sort of.  But revert to 17 December 2023 , when it was actually a moderately well-sourced article about a long-standing publication/movement (the Socialist Appeal).  Then merge the latest edit of Socialist Appeal (Britain) back on top of it and delete that article.  Then move the entire stack (with edit history) back to Socialist Appeal (Britain) where it belongs.  I'm at an absolute loss as to what the blazing nonsense has gone on with this article.  They've moved a long-standing article, blanked it and rebranded it, and then someone's copied the old content into a new article using the old name!?! A quick hunt back through the History shows it is notable - they've just removed all the references to the former name, instead of creating a new article for the new name/body (which likely wouldn't pass NPP).  Failing all that, Delete , it's just a shame to lose the edit history for Socialist Appeal (Britain) , which is currently underneath this article.  Hemmers ( talk ) 18:56, 1 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I concur.  My feeling is that member(s) of the party and/or its international affiliates have done what you describe above for appearances, namely to give the impression that this is a new party with a fresh face rather than simply a rebrand.  It makes more sense to have just renamed the old Socialist Appeal article.  The pretext for a new article is that this is a merger of two parties and thus a new organisation.  This is something of a pretense since there's no real reason to think there were separate English and Scottish parties that have merged rather than just one organisation which had a Scottish and English newspaper (especially as the IMT has always opposed Scottish independence).  Even if this is the merger of separate Scottish and English organisations (which is a supposition rather than a sourced claim) they were two sections of the same international organisation so it wouldn't really be a merger as much as a reorganisation.  Wellington Bay ( talk ) 19:12, 1 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep and Restore old version per Hemmers Abo Yemen ✉ 13:56, 2 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep and restore previous version as per Hemmers.  Suonii180 ( talk ) 23:17, 3 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge into Socialist Appeal: The separation into two articles looks to have been the work of a now banned single-purpose sockpuppet account.  I think the heart of the problem here is that this article is preceding the establishment of the group itself (which isn't until May).  The situation isn't helped by the frankly deliberate obfuscation by the organisations involved (which seems to be for the sole reason of hiding their numbers so you think it's more than two blokes in a shed) so we don't know if it's a merger/rebrand.  Quite honestly I think there needs to be a real reconsideration of the notability of a lot of International Marxist Tendency related pages as they appear to be overwhelmingly reliant on their own webpages (of which they run several, also seemingly a deliberate attempt at obfuscation).  Rambling Rambler ( talk ) 13:28, 4 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep as per comment on the discussion page for merging the socialist appeal page with this one: Socialist Appeal was an entryist group within the Labour party, synonymous with the newspaper of the same name.  the RCP is an open political party with a noticeably different political identity.  the two groups employ different methods.  The Revolutionary Communist Party will also see the merging together of the forces previously organised around the paper Revolution Scotland (revolution.scot) and the forces previously around SA.  it's a different entity.  the content of the two pages is also different.  one deals thoroughly with the history of the Militant split etc, whereas this one is mostly about the party's very recent history.  I think a merger of the pages will only confuse people.  @Tedgrant1917 Hewer7 ( talk ) 20:10, 6 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] In the absence of any reliable sources and the lack of independent sources there simply isn't enough to justify a separate article on the RCP.  Wellington Bay ( talk ) 20:42, 6 March 2024 (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.

Discussion outcome: keep