Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Swedish_parties References

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 Procedural close. It appears notability of these may be mixed, please nominate separately (non-admin closure) Reywas92^Talk 18:57, 30 September 2020 (UTC) reply

Swedish political parties

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Swedish political parties – ( View log)

(Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

These political party articles are remnants from another time, when the tendency on Wikipedia was that every single political party ever are notable. That is not the case, because tons of these parties are even more lacking in independent in-depth coverage than they are in popular votes. This discussion prompted me to check the Swedish situation, and there were a lot of parties too insignificant for an encyclopedia. I therefore nominate, as a start:

Geschichte ( talk) 17:38, 28 September 2020 (UTC) reply

Oppose collective deletion. Some nuance needs to be adapted here. Most of these parties are/were solely local entities. The 'Donald Duck Party' is a very well-known phenomenon, a bit like the Monster Raving Loony Party in the UK. The Popular Democrats was not a local party, and should be valued on its own merit. Also, we have to observe particularities of Swedish electoral system, whereby one can vote for parties that didn't field any candidates. -- Soman ( talk) 18:47, 28 September 2020 (UTC) reply

I hardly think the Donald Duck Party was anything like the Monster Raving Loony Party. I had the latter in my school textbook, an indication that it was known at least throughout parts of Western Europe. The Swedish electoral system is irrelevant as long as the parties in question get almost no voters and no coverage. (Also observe Wikipedia's articles on newer Swedish elections, where parties <500 votes aren't even mentioned.) Where is the significant independent non-trivial coverage? Geschichte ( talk) 20:07, 28 September 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:12, 28 September 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:12, 28 September 2020 (UTC) reply

Speedy close without action. Inappropriate mass nomination. Nominator provides no actual arguments regarding individual article subject notability. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. Fight for freedom, stand with Hong Kong! ( talk) 22:35, 28 September 2020 (UTC) reply

The same argument applies to every one of the entitities, lack of in-depth non-trivial independent coverage. The "individual subject notability" in each case is none. Geschichte ( talk) 07:18, 29 September 2020 (UTC) reply

Question: "The Swedish electoral system is irrelevant"? — Toughpigs ( talk) 22:53, 28 September 2020 (UTC) reply

Yes. The fact that write-in candidates may be voted for is not interesting as long as the write-in candidates don't get votes, or in-depth non-trivial independent coverage. Geschichte ( talk) 07:18, 29 September 2020 (UTC) reply

The point is that the write-in system means that a party may receive votes without having even registered any candidates. Thus parties that have effectively ceased to exist keep appearing in election results. Regarding the Popular Democrats, seems they emerged from Arbetarlistan which had a degree of notability at the time (but seemingly not well covered in internet sources). -- Soman ( talk) 17:09, 29 September 2020 (UTC) reply

How was your WP:BEFORE search of each in Swedish? I could find e.g. sustained and non-trivial news coverage about Donald Duck Party ( [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6]). – Finnusertop ( talk ⋅ contribs) 12:10, 29 September 2020 (UTC) reply
Comment I agree with Hullaballoo Wolfowitz, some of these may be non-notable, but this nonmination seems poorly thought out. ★Trekker ( talk) 12:37, 29 September 2020 (UTC) reply
Oppose deletion. The only party listed I'm familiar with, Drevvikenpartiet, is pretty clearly notable as it's one of the largest parties in the Drevviken area. (Disclaimer: I used to live there.) On that basis there are probably others which are notable and I have to oppose the proposed group deletion. Tammbeck ^talk 13:24, 29 September 2020 (UTC) reply
Keep - Per WP:GNG. With that said I guess notability of all parties might be in question on individual level. But most are so I say Keep. BabbaQ ( talk) 16:41, 29 September 2020 (UTC) reply
Procedural keep all. I don't think a proper WP:BEFORE search was done and the mass nomination format here has wasted more time and trouble than it was supposed to save. Individual items can be re-nominated if the WP:BEFORE checks are carried out. – Finnusertop ( talk ⋅ contribs) 14:00, 30 September 2020 (UTC) reply
Oppose collective deletion. Each article should be nominated separately (if the nominator still thinks it's necessary) and a proper WP:BEFORE should be done. Less Unless ( talk) 17:59, 30 September 2020 (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.