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.
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 TitusTalk 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)
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
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.