Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Socialist Alternatives

Socialist Alternatives

[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)

When I stumbled across this article, I was quickly struck by how many of the cited sources were the Socialist Alternatives magazine itself, making up more than half of the cited sources. Then I noticed quite a few citations were to self-published wordpress blogs, which wasn't encouraging. The Encyclopedia of British and Irish Political Organizations doesn't give much more detail other than it being the short-lived British section of the IRMT, and gestures at a couple other organisations it may have been connected to.

What is left over then are mostly sources about Keir Starmer's relationship to the magazine. When I looked up Socialist Alternatives on Google Scholar, I likewise only found biographies of Starmer. I haven't been able to find significant coverage of the group/magazine itself.

Given all this, I'm unconvinced that this group/publication is independently notable. Its only significant coverage in reliable sources are about its connection with someone that became important decades after his involvement with the group. As such, I'm proposing it for deletion; I'm not sure whether the articles on the IRMT or Starmer himself would be more appropriate redirect targets. Grnrchst (talk) 10:06, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, Social science, and United Kingdom. Grnrchst (talk) 10:06, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - If Wikipedia was around in the late 1980s or 1990s then this magazine\political tendency would easily meet notability criteria - it was an active political group and it managed to get a good number of the British left to contribute, including Tony Benn, Ralph Miliband and Hilary Wainwright. The person "that became important decades after his involvement with the group" was the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom - and it's not unusual that large articles like Keir Starmer's will tend to have "sub articles". The basic argument for suppressing pages about movements that were notable once was that they didn't last - but even though I'd argue that Starmer's not the only reason we should keep the article, his political development as currently the most powerful single person in the UK is a sufficient reason. (It should also be noted that "half the sources are internal, misses out that there are currently 11 external sources, so it seems externally notable). JASpencer (talk) 20:38, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per JASpencer. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:35, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 17:00, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with International Revolutionary Marxist Tendency. As noted by the nominator, most content is cited from the magazine itself, however, as per JASpencer, it was important in many current British politician's careers. Both of the articles are relatively short, and the magazine could be a section in the IRMT article. --Cmrc23 (talk) 05:33, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]