Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mick Armstrong

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 Socialist Alternative (Australia). I will add a mention of Armstrong at the target, citing the source mentioned here. It is unfortunate that this wasn't done earlier, which would have saved the time of the editors both at the RfD and here. Owen× ☎ 15:45, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mick Armstrong

[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)

This was WP:BLAR'd to Socialist Alternative (Australia)#History, but is not mentioned in the target and the redirect was taken to RFD. The discussion called for it to be listed here. I'm listing this because I closed the RFD; I have not otherwise investigated the subject. asilvering (talk) 02:48, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Politics, and Australia. asilvering (talk) 02:48, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'd like to point out that Mick Armstrong was mentioned in the target when the redirect was created. He was only removed from that article a minute before the redirect was listed for discussion, for not being mentioned in the target... The removal (and deletion) may turn out to be perfectly justified (I have no insight into and no opinion about this matter), but I find the reason "not mentioned in target" strange when the reason for this is that the user has removed it themselves moments earlier, and then doesn't disclose that they did this. Renerpho (talk) 05:35, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
With the original state of the Socialist Alternative (Australia) article (before the removal of that paragraph, and more so when the redirect was created in 2020), that redirect looks sensible to me. The relevant paragraph was tagged as needing citations since June 2024; and as I said, removing it may be the right choice. But it wasn't an unreasonable target for the redirect based on what it looked like at the time. Renerpho (talk) 06:06, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think once the material was removed though (as failing WP:V) at that point the redirect being discussed was valid. TarnishedPath^talk 06:36, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@TarnishedPath: Yes, and maybe others will be more lenient. WP:CHALLENGE is clear that you had every right to remove it. That doesn't mean that the timing wasn't unfortunate, and that this wasn't important. I would have preferred either an upfront mention that you removed it ("I have just removed this as failing WP:V, and believe the redirect should be deleted because it's no longer mentioned in the target"), or to leave it and include it in the discussion ("I plan to remove this unsourced information from the target, at which point the subject will no longer be mentioned in the target"). This gives users the opportunity to form an opinion if sources exist (the talk page exists if there's more to know). It's a matter of transparency: When I see an argument like "not mentioned in the target", my impression is that this is because the two are unrelated, and the redirect was unreasonable. I feel misled when important background about the article's history is hidden from me. Renerpho (talk) 07:36, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'll keep that in mind for future reference. TarnishedPath^talk 08:12, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. Thanks for pointing it out in this AfD. -- asilvering (talk) 16:51, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:03, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note Austudy Five has just been Prodded. I found a cite that Mick Armstrong was one of the 5 in a few seconds, a better cite would still be valuable. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 15:40, 19 October 2024 (UTC).[reply]
Delete: All the references in the article (that aren't broken) only mention him in passing besides this which is a review of one of Armstrong's books. Performing a search I found a bunch of articles written by him at redflag.org.au (One of Socialist Alternative's newspapers which Armstrong seems to be a member of) and other articles from the same site that discuss him. Redflag is obviously not independent and can't be used to establish notability. Nothing I've found would satisfy WP:AUTHOR and I don't think there's enough for WP:BASIC. Ping me if good sources are found. TarnishedPath^talk 04:28, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Subject to another deletion discussion (Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 October 13#Mick Armstrong) so I don't think Soft Deletion is an option.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:44, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect back to Socialist Alternative (SA). That is, more or less turn back the clock to before the discussion of that redirect was started (including adding back the mention at the target; see my comment above). I find links.org.au and sa.org.au convincing enough to have him mentioned there, but too little for a standalone article. Both sources mention Armstrong at the very top, but only the latter does this because he comes alphabetically first; and judging from its critical standpoint, the former doesn't seem to be affiliated with SA. Books like this, while being self-published, at least demonstrate the link between Armstrong and SA (who surely wouldn't let him publish in their name if he wasn't speaking, well, in their name). As I said, there's not enough to demonstrate that Armstrong is notable enough for a standalone article, but the redirect looks like a straightforward "keep". Renerpho (talk) 12:05, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think you mean Socialist Alternative (Australia). I'm not sure what context you suggest Armstrong's name would be added? Back to the further reading as a link to his book? TarnishedPath^talk 12:22, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. Yes, that's the target I meant. Renerpho (talk) 12:26, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would Support the redirect back to the same target ONLY if mention is added back, and would Oppose the redirect if mention could not be added. The context in which mention could be added is as a member in the history of Socialist Alternative which says: .. established in 1995 by ex-members of the former International Socialist Organisation... The pre-BLAR history of Mick Armstrong says: In 1995, he and several other leading members, including Sandra Bloodworth and Jill Sparrow... went on to form Socialist Alternative. If the list of founders is not a large number, these three names, assuming they are not WP:UNDUE, can be mentioned in the History section. Jay 💬 16:39, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The material I removed from Socialist Alternative (Australia) on 6 October at Special:Diff/1249674311 stated:

"According to National Executive member Mick Armstrong, Socialist Alternative's focus on student work is part of a perspective that the organisation has adopted for the political period due to what they see as their limited size and influence in the working class movement and the lack of any substantial radicalisation in society. Socialist Alternative's political orientation to students mirrors the development of the British Socialist Workers Party during the 1980s.^{[citation needed]} and had been taged as needing a citation since June 2024.

The material you suggest adding to Socialist Alternative (Australia) is similarly problematic insofar that it has been tagged at Mick Armstrong as needing a citation from January 2020, seven months before the Armstrong article was first redirected at Special:Diff/971395084.

If your suggested material is to be added a citation would be needed for it. TarnishedPath^talk 06:19, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Socialist Alternative (Australia) and add a mention of Mick Armstrong to the History section, as suggested by Jay. Yue🌙 21:43, 28 October 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.