- 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. CactusWriter's work seems to have driven the consensus.--Kubigula (talk) 04:30, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Visions-Partiet (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
per WP:ORG. Political party that has never taken a seat at any level of legislature Ohconfucius ¡digame! 15:51, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
*Delete striking, see below. Doesn't merit a mention in the List of political parties in Denmark article, so certainly not notable. Tigerboy1966 (talk) 01:52, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I find nothing to support notability on gnews or gbooks.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:12, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep -- There is no requirement that a political party must have successfully elected its candidates. WP:ORG only requires significant coverage in independent sources and which verifies all the information, such as:
- Bering, Marie (1 January 2003). "Nyt Parti Med Visioner" [New Party with Visions]. Jyllands-Posten. Retrieved 2012-01-14.
- Jacobsen Turner, David (25 July 2007). "Den lange vej til Christiansborg" [The Long Way to Christiansborg]. Dagbladet Information. Retrieved 2012-01-14.
- Phil-Andersen, Axel (27 July 2003). "Nyt Parti vil i Folketinget" [New Party will be in Parliament]. Jyllands-Posten. Retrieved 2012-01-14.
- I also note that the party is included in the Den Store Danske, the Danish encyclopedia. — CactusWriter (talk) 23:06, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Changing opinion in the light of CactusWriter's sources. Tigerboy1966 (talk) 23:14, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Only 400 members according to their homepage (in Danish) and as far as I can see, didn't manage to actually become eligible for running for the Danish Parliament. Further I also only found 10 mentions in printed Danish media for a 10 year period. --Heb (talk) 14:57, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Heb, while I agree with you that the party is obviously small and never received more than 0.1 of the vote in regional elections -- the size or importance of an organization, on its own, is not a valid parameter for determining notability (Please see WP:ORGIN). Our guidelines for inclusion only require significant coverage in independent reliable sources. The reliable secondary sources (national newspaper coverage), confirmed by a reliable tertiary source (Gyldendals), meets the policy criteria of WP:GNG. — CactusWriter (talk) 19:00, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I think the splitting hair in this case is, how we interpret the word "significant". For me, 15 mentions in printed media and a mention in another public editable Wiki-based lexical (Gyldendals) doesn't constitute "significant". --Heb (talk) 07:10, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- My reading of the General notability guideline is that "significant" is about quality rather than quantity. You can have a perfectly decent article with just two good sources. I changed my mind about this one, because the sources seemed to be more that just mentions. Tigerboy1966 (talk) 10:09, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I think the splitting hair in this case is, how we interpret the word "significant". For me, 15 mentions in printed media and a mention in another public editable Wiki-based lexical (Gyldendals) doesn't constitute "significant". --Heb (talk) 07:10, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Heb, while I agree with you that the party is obviously small and never received more than 0.1 of the vote in regional elections -- the size or importance of an organization, on its own, is not a valid parameter for determining notability (Please see WP:ORGIN). Our guidelines for inclusion only require significant coverage in independent reliable sources. The reliable secondary sources (national newspaper coverage), confirmed by a reliable tertiary source (Gyldendals), meets the policy criteria of WP:GNG. — CactusWriter (talk) 19:00, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Even a fringe party who has never elected anyone, and indeed never been eligible to have anyone elected, would still be notable if reliable sources gave it non-trivial coverage. This appears to be the case here. --Ifnord (talk) 04:27, 21 January 2012 (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.