Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PINK!

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 merge to Party for the Animals#PINK!. Sandstein 07:01, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

PINK!

[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)

Non-notable. Tagged for notability since 2011. Lacks sources. It is a sub-group of Party for the Animals and already has a sub-section at the parent article. An additional stand-alone article is not justified. Timothy Titus ^{Talk To TT} 16:46, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Timothy Titus ^{Talk To TT} 16:46, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Timothy Titus ^{Talk To TT} 16:46, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete barring Dutch-language sources coming to light, I can't see this reaching the notability threshold. Stuartyeates (talk) 18:58, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment language has no bearing on notability. ‎⠀Trimton⠀‎‎ 22:59, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - ...as per WP:GNG: Sources do not have to be available online or written in English. (for your info, Stuartyeates)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:27, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with and redirect to the Party for the Animals section. The section, which does not have any references, could use the reference from the article, as well as any more descriptive content on the article. WaddlesJP13 (talk | contributions) 03:39, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. This organization is notable but, as others also pointed out, totally unnecessary at present. Spinoffs start with well developed sections in the parent and other important information to elaborate. Right now, both the section in the parent and this article contain a miserable amount of information. gidonb (talk) 09:33, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This article was started by a known sockpuppeteer from his account that has not yet been flagged. gidonb (talk) 09:37, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment authorship alone has no bearing on notability. ‎⠀Trimton⠀‎‎ 22:59, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Editing WP for 18 years I have stepped up and provide some background on articles. Otherwise this experience goes to waste for the community. Now if you had read my comment in combination with my opinion, you could have noticed that I hold this PvdD-affiliated organization to be notable. The topic is notable but the article unjustified. gidonb (talk) 14:05, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - meets WP:GNG with discussion of their political positions at Vice and discussion of their dynamics with the main party at Algemeen Dagblad. ‎⠀Trimton⠀‎‎ 22:59, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So what is your stance on merging? A topic can be notable while a merge is warranted. gidonb (talk) 14:05, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gidonb it might make sense to move content from Partij voor de Dieren to PINK! and then use the Template:Excerpt in the PvdD article. This syncs the PvdD article with the first paragraph from the PINK one. But I'd keep a separate article since some readers will specifically search for info on the youth wing. Having little content is no WP:DEL-REASON even though I see you'd prefer otherwise. ‎⠀Trimton⠀‎‎ 19:13, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Trimton Again, I do not think that deleting is a valid option as the subject is notable. There isn't enough here for a spinoff so merge is the only good option. This makes WP:DEL-REASON 100% irrelevant! The direction of content movement prescribed by you is not how an encyclopedia works or should work. gidonb (talk) 20:43, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Gidonb DEL-REASON is a nonexhaustive list. So yeah, it's not that we cannot delete under policy. But we don't have to delete, either, as PINK meets WP:GNG. You say we should delete despite GNG, right? Because meeting GNG only provides "presumed" notability(=right to an article)? I'm not familiar with PINK at all. I've only Googled it briefly. Could you perhaps explain why you think there is not enough for more than a stub? ‎⠀Trimton⠀‎‎ 19:47, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge > Party for the Animals#PINK!. Djflem (talk) 20:06, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi Djflem, it would help if you explained your reasoning! (WP:DISCUSSAFD: valid arguments will be given more weight than unsupported statements.) ‎⠀Trimton⠀‎‎ 19:47, 28 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.