Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Patria case

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) ─ The Aafī ^{^(talk)} 08:36, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Patria case

[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)

The article largely reflects the personal view of the Wikipedia editor "Claudi8". A "Patria case" is neither discussed, nor described in any reliable sources; therefore, it is safe to assume that a "Patria case" as described by the article does not exist, and that the main purpose of the article is to spread original research and personal points of view. The article fails to comply with all Wikipedia core content policies (WP:NOR, WP:NPOV, and WP:VER) as well as WP:NOTESSAY and WP:NOTNEWS. Therefore, I believe that the article should be deleted. -- Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 13:59, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:01, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Slovenia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:01, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

People certainly seem to think that it exists and has this name, although it is saddening to see an article talk about 2008 in the present tense, and people's announced intentions to do things in the future in 2008. Uncle G (talk) 21:08, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Deletion is not an alternative to cleanup. Though, admittedly, the article needs lots of work. --Tone 08:35, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Totally agree.Trimton (talk) 13:41, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The topic is notable since there's lots of coverage in good press, e.g. Austrian Kurier has an article here, Reuters here, Finland's national broadcaster Yle here Trimton (talk) 13:24, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

These articles mention corruption within Patria, but they do not describe what the article considers to be a "Patria case". The Kurier article is about SSF; the Reuters article is about Janez Jansa being convicted in a bribery case; the Yle article describes that two former Patria executives accuse Yle of libel. Stitching pieces of information together so that a "Patria case" is formed, is not what Wikipedia is for. Best, --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 15:31, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Kurier article is not only about SSF. It mentions Patria throughout, with seven mentions of the name. You're right that none of the articles I linked calls the corruption investigation of Patria the "Patria case" but the absence of a unified name does not mean that the affair isn't notable. Otherwise, we would have to delete Bárcenas affair just because the majority of the press don't use that name (e.g. BBC calls it Bárcenas scandal]. Kurier calls the Patria case "die Affäre um den Steyr-Konkurrenten Patria aus Finnland" ('the affair around Patria, a Finnish competitor of Steyr'). So a) there is an affair, b) perhaps we should rename the article to "Patria affair". Perhaps, it would be even better to specify that the affair was about corruption (not, say, about adultery or bullying). So we could rename it "Patria corruption affair", in line with the practice of specifying the affair content, e.g. in Bill Clinton sexual assault and misconduct allegations.Trimton (talk) 13:40, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 15:03, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Kurier article does mention the Patria case, but it doesn't describe it in great detail; in fact, it doesn't describe it at all, it assumes that the reader knows the Patria case. I. e. that the article is on a completely different topic. Best, --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 16:22, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's a valid topic that meets WP:GNG and was certainly not construed by WP:OR. English-language sources call it e.g. "Patria scandal". Finnish-language sources tended to use names that reflected different stages of the process e.g. "Patria-tutkinta" [Patria investigation], "Patria-syytteet" [Patria charges], and Patria-oikeudenkäynti" [Patria trial]. A better name/classification is used by many sources: "Patrian Slovenian-kaupat" [Patria Slovenia deal]. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:23, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but should be rewritten, like, a lot. AdoTang (talk) 18:50, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Finnusertop. Riteboke (talk) 08:17, 14 April 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.