Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Europe – Democracy – Esperanto

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 no consensus. Daniel (talk) 03:54, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Europe – Democracy – Esperanto

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

Only sources available are the party's own website and the Esperanto-language website of someone listed on that same site as a party candidate. Article says it's based on the articles on de.wiki and eo.wiki but the eo.wiki article is itself unsourced (as are all other language versions) and the de.wiki article has been deleted. Google search reveals no non-trivial sources beyond what I take to be straight translations of the eo.wiki article. Thus I believe this party fails notability. Pfainuk talk 14:04, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Maybe it can be mentioned in the Esperanto article. A political party that gets 1/4 of one percent of the vote sounds more like a lobby group to me. Mandsford (talk) 15:09, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep National political parties tend to be notable. I've found some reliable source coverage, but most is in french and behind the pay screen. In terms of free articles, Les Échos has an (albeit short) article entirely about the EDE [1] and a passing mention of them in another [2]. There are small but substantive mentions of the party in Le Figaro and Le Monde [3] I was able to get off Lexis Nexis which talk about the party as an example of all the peculiar parties in the 2004 election. It's also worth noting that the article seems mostly to be a translation of the one on French Wikipedia, where it's existed since 2004. Vickser (talk) 17:06, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Whether a national political party is notable depends, IMO, on the coverage the political party has received. If there are sources, by all means update the article to reflect them - in that case this process will do some good to the article and if it becomes clear to me that the party is notable I will withdraw the nomination per WP:AFD. But the only election they have fought (so far as I can see) was the 2004 European election in France, where there were (according to your second article) 168 lists of candidates split between 8 constituencies - an average of 21 parties per constituency. Many, I would suggest, are not notable.
- Of your sources, I can't get at Le Monde without paying, so I can't comment on it. The second Les Echos is a passing mention as you say. The first - well, almost all of what it says about the party is quoted from the party itself - to the extent that I don't think we can reasonably call it a secondary source. Similarly this source from Ouest-France that I found after this nomination. Finally, the fr.wiki article is all very well, but the only source it gives is for vote count in the 2004 election, so I don't see that it establishes notability either. Pfainuk talk 18:18, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I've gone ahead and edited in the sources and would encourage you all to take a look. Pretty much from my reading of them, the EDE became a poster child of ridiculous parties running in the election. You're right that the Les Echos article does seem a bit biased. Looking around the archives of the site it seems they published party platforms for some of the groups running in the election, and EDE was selected as that. To clarify, I don't think being on french wikipedia is necessarily a definitive "this is notable" thing, but I do think that notability is independent of language, and its longstanding existance there makes me more inclined to believe it is likely to be notable. If people do still believe it's not worthy of a separate article, I'd probably encourage a redirect and section in Esperanto. In the Le Figaro article it mentions the party as one of only 13 that will be present in almost all constinuancies. Vickser (talk) 20:20, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - From the Esperanto perspective (as opposed to the European politics perspective), a brief mention in an article such as finvenkismo - or even the Esperanto main article - could be appropriate. Pfainuk talk 10:50, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This political mouvement has hummanist ideas. They propose manners to reach more democracy. 25 thousand french people voted for them, according to Interan Ministry: http://www.interieur.gouv.fr/sections/a_votre_service/resultats-elections/eur2004/index.html Their website exists in more language than spoken in Brussel's parliament. As German Nobel price has just been nominated al list leader for the EU election in Germany. If you delete this article then delete all other things about minorities. User BertSchumannn 9 July 2008. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BertSchumann (talk • contribs) 23:21, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't quite see how any of this implies notability per WP:N, which suggests that, to get its own article, the party should receive "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Pfainuk talk 10:50, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Incidentally, someone called "Bert Schumann" is listed at fr:Europe - Démocratie - Espéranto as a Vice President of the party. Pfainuk talk 17:38, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Surely a political party which gets 0.25% of the vote is the exemplar of un-notability? This is the kind of thing which might make a footnote on a article about Esperanto. A good chunk of the Google results on this group are from Wikipedia and mirrors. Surely being listed in Wikipedia can't count as notability for inclusion in Wikipedia! Blue-Haired Lawyer 18:39, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- For google you're better off searching "Europe Démocratie Espéranto" instead of the English translation. That got me 3,620 hits from a whole bunch of different sites. Not enough that it proves notability off google alone, but enough that google doesn't dismiss the possibility of notability. Vickser (talk) 20:30, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep In the following months, while the European Parliament election of 2009 is coming closer, EDE will get again much attention in the newspapers. Just today there is an article on Esperanto and our German association "Europa - Demokratie - Esperanto" in Wiesbadener Tagblatt. Ulrich Matthias (talk) 17:00, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- I would like to note that this is (presumably) the person who wrote the single website source, listed as a party candidate on that site. In this case there is a conflict of interest. The source is a profile of Matthias himself and the Wiesbaden Esperanto Association, and does mention the political party but only in passing. Pfainuk talk 17:38, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 19:16, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 19:16, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Getting 0.15% of the vote on a national basis certainly doesn't make this a major party, but it's enough to have an article. --Groggy Dice T | C 16:37, 12 July 2008 (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.