Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Berg Party

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 keep. (non-admin closure) Enos733 (talk) 15:32, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Berg Party (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This political party is only municipal in outreach, has no historical importance and no political consequence. It fails WP:GNG and every other Wikipedia guideline. Geschichte (talk) 10:59, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:01, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:01, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:01, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The suggestion that a political party that is only municipal in scope has no political consequence is (as history teaches us) false. Further, I note that the Swedish-language version of Wikipedia's article on this party was able to find enough references and significance to keep their corresponding article. Part of the problem here may be systemic, linguistic and cultural bias. RomanSpa (talk) 11:50, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or redirect to Berg_Municipality#Politics. Even looking at Swedish, a party exclusive to a single small town of 7,000 people that has never received 2,000 votes in an election is not going to be notable here. Reywas92^Talk 14:15, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep NB WP:NEXIST. Significant coverage in Swedish media, party was the result of internal Centre Party feuds, received national coverage throughout its existence; passes the GNG. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 21:31, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Surely it doesn't fail every guideline? ;-) Joking aside, a local party in a small Swedish municipality is unlikely to meet WP:ORGCRIT, but I think that the criteria are met here. The current sourcing is abysmal, but the sv.wiki article includes several sources: this is a regional newspaper, so wouldn't work on its own, this however is an in-depth article in Dagens Nyheter and this is is from Sveriges Radio. Looking for other sources, I find this from (a local division of) Sveriges Television and this which is fairly in-depth, from Östersunds-Posten, also a regional newspaper but slightly weightier than the first source I linked. Taken together, I think these sources show that WP:ORGCRIT is met, especially since they were published at different times, the earliest in 2006 and the last in 2014, so it is not a case of brief and ephemeral interest. I will undertake to add these sources and develop the article based on them, provided it survives the AfD. --bonadea contributions talk 11:04, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hej Bonadea, am in heated agreement and thanks for highlighting some relevant sources. Just to make a minor clarification, beyond the GNG, I think WP:NONPROFIT is the more appropriate criteria here, rather than ORGCRIT, as the latter's criteria are designed to deal with the problems associated with promotional material of for-profit enterprises: These criteria, generally, follow the general notability guideline with a stronger emphasis on quality of the sources to prevent gaming of the rules by marketing and public relations professionals. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 13:05, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, per Bonadea above. /Julle (talk) 08:56, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, as Bonadea has shown enough sources for notability under the nonprofit guideline, showing that the article does not fail every guideline.Jackattack1597 (talk) 10:38, 20 July 2021 (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.