Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Axielijst
From 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 delete. --Coredesat 05:13, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Axielijst
Rejected db-bio. My db-bio reason: the article contains no apparent or asserted importance or significance of the subject. Axielijst is a squatter activist group with one seat on local council in the 7th largest city in The Netherlands, and has no wider political presence. Search hits for the party are minimal in count and content, offering no clear reliable sources to further establish notability or significance via the admin's suggested "expansion and cleanup" of the current 2-line article. This seems an issue better addressed via explanatory sentence(s) on Axielijst in the Haarlem city article at the existing local government section. I recommend Merge to Haarlem. Michael Devore 07:41, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:N, and WP:ORG. Nenyedi • (Deeds•Talk) 14:09, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
- Keep all political parties with any significant notice are notable, and I would certainly extend t his to any having an actual seat on even a major municipal city council. (or a state or provincial legislature). The election undoubtedly produced sources, so it should be sourceable. DGG (talk) 22:09, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
-
- However, as Wikipedia documents, notability is insufficient of itself for an article. Given the lack of detailed reliable sources, the party fits easily back into the main Haarlem article with no loss of information or failure to notice the party's current notability. There is direct precedent for this, as two of the other local government parties on the same list of local government seats in Haarlem are without their own article (and further contain no additional detail, as Axielijst would possess following a merge). I think a merge fits better here. Failing that, a Dutch-speaking individual who has access to better archives might be able to shape an encyclopedic article on Axielijst, which I would support. Right now, this article isn't it. Michael Devore 22:35, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
- As Wikipedia also documents, proposals to merge don't belong on AfD. If you want to merge, withdraw this nomination, be bold and do the merge yourself, or discuss it on the article's talk page. DHowell 02:35, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
- Not quite so simple after a failed speedy; there could easily be a perception of bypassing a decision to achieve the result. Though not officially described as such, a merge is a subset of deletion as others have commented on in the past (merge and delete, or delete and merge, AfD recommendations are common enough to be warned against and still happen). In any case, I believe I have been sufficiently bold on Wikipedia on other articles to be somewhat less so here, in light of the contested action. Michael Devore 02:45, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
- As Wikipedia also documents, proposals to merge don't belong on AfD. If you want to merge, withdraw this nomination, be bold and do the merge yourself, or discuss it on the article's talk page. DHowell 02:35, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
- However, as Wikipedia documents, notability is insufficient of itself for an article. Given the lack of detailed reliable sources, the party fits easily back into the main Haarlem article with no loss of information or failure to notice the party's current notability. There is direct precedent for this, as two of the other local government parties on the same list of local government seats in Haarlem are without their own article (and further contain no additional detail, as Axielijst would possess following a merge). I think a merge fits better here. Failing that, a Dutch-speaking individual who has access to better archives might be able to shape an encyclopedic article on Axielijst, which I would support. Right now, this article isn't it. Michael Devore 22:35, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
- Merge and redirect (do not delete), per nom. DHowell 02:35, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:07, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete as per nom.Harlowraman 06:42, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete A 'party' with one seat on one city council doesn't cut it as far as political notability goes. Nick mallory 10:29, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete as unverifiable and non-notable. Jakew 12:27, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
- 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.
