 | This article was nominated for deletion on 21 July 2020. The result of the discussion was redirect. |
Notability edit
- Only one source is in English
- Most of the page and most of the sources are just about inter-party skulduggery and gossip
- No one involved in the party is notable as far as Wikipedia is concerned(no one involved has their own page)
- They received less than 9,000 votes, constituting just 1.7% of the total vote, in the only vote they've been a part of.
- the party holds no seats in Slovenia or the European parliament
- They have no accomplishments, legislative or otherwise to their name
This party's actual notability needs to be established, otherwise the page should be deleted Grung0r (talk) 14:12, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
- Hi. I think the article is notable in terms of wiki articles regarding national politics. As far as I know, all established parties can have their independent wiki articles as long as these can be properly sourced. There is an array of wiki entries in the Slovene Wikipedia about even smaller political parties. Notability is furthermore not referential; the fact that the leaders of the party do not have their respective wiki entries on English Wikipedia, as well as the poor coverage of Slovenian politics on the English Wiki in general, is not in itself an argument for deleting the articles that do exist and constricting coverage even further.
- While the party has received scant coverage in English-language reports, this in itself is likewise not an argument against the article since sources need not be in the language of the wiki.
- The party is furthermore relevant as the major far-right/alt-right party in Slovenia. 1.7% of the vote is also not insignificant since the parliamentary threshold - for example - is 4% (and the threshold for receiving state funding is 1% I believe). Though I admit the general interest of the article may be marginal, it may be of interest to those curious about the Slovene political context/political history.
- I agree regarding the petty internecine conflict between the leaders. However, these details are relevant in a self-referential fashion as these describe the inter-party dynamics (as well as the broader intra-party dynamics on the right vis-a-vis SDS) may portend the untimely demise of the party (may be of more interest to readers that are Slovene nationals). But if other editors find them irrelevant, this paragraph may be removed.
- I thought it wise to address your individual arguments as I thought your objection to the existence of this article is derived from those in-of-themselves. However, the crux of the matter is that there are adequate sources to justify a separate article and therefore meet the criteria set forth in the guidelines.
- No, none of the sources in this article meet the criteria of being independent, reliable, secondary sources. For instance, footnote 1(https://www.total-slovenia-news.com/politics/3402-first-congress-of-homeland-leave-slovenia-s-new-far-right-party) which is the sole source informing the opening paragraph and the first paragraph of the "history" section, appears to be a press release, based on the lack of a byline and completely credulous, uncritical claims about an event that may not have even take place. If it isn't a press release, how and by whom was the information in the article obtained? How can I verify it? Furthermore, this website openly solicits that it is accepts user content(https://www.total-slovenia-news.com/info/4-work-with-us). It's simply not independent, reliable, verifiable or secondary. Without that source, this article not only loses it's only english source, but also is no longer a functional Wikipedia article, just an account of a couple of Slovenians yelling at each other and what amounts advertisement for this "party's" ideology. is there an argument for Total Slovenia News being independent, reliable, and secondary that I am missing? If not, since you are the creator of the page and it's sole material contributor, I suggest you blank the page and let it be speedily deleted. Grung0r (talk) 01:33, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
- The first source is a republished report from the Slovenian Press Agency, as is listed in the byline. I used a re-publication since STA articles are paywalled and thought it better to use an English-language source. I can add some SLO-language sources if you'd like, though ...
- The Ideology section is a summary of the self-declared platform of the party. I don't find that to be an "advertisement".
- The Slovenian Press Agency is not an author(nor are they a reliable source,but it hardly matters in this particular case) . To whom is this report attributable, per WP:A? Grung0r (talk) 04:06, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
Here's the original Slovene language article [1]. The initials of the original authors are given as "tvr/bg". STA does not publish full names of article authors.
However, I don't see how this is relevant. STA is a reliable source. The exact author of the source text is not needed to meet wiki criteria as long as the source is reliable.
-J Jay Hodec (talk) 04:45, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
- This is absurd. A state owned media outlet that "does not publish full names of article authors" is not a reliable source! What is the possible justification for such a policy, other than to be able to pass off press releases about fictional events as "news"? Grung0r (talk) 05:47, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
- Actually, this is also common for bylines in articles authored by RTV Slovenia and SiOL journalists. STA is furthermore routinely relied upon for reporting by all the major Slovenian newspapers. I really hope you're not alleging some country-wide conspiracy where Slovene media regularly publishes reports about "fictional events" (the STA piece about the Homeland League was relied on by several media organisations for their own coverage, by the way).
- I really hope there's a misunderstanding. However, if you're really saying what I think you're saying, I think it best to leave the discussion here and let other editors evaluate the merits of your rather fanciful assertions ...
- I don't really understand the question. I think 2 or 3 are based at least in part on STA agency reports, I'm not sure whether it's the same as the one translated into English in any of those cases. By the way, media organisations relying on news agency reporting is standard practice in a lot of countries.
- I ask because even if I were to accept that the STA report isn't just a press release, which it obviously is, it would mean that any source that used the STA report wouldn't be independent, per WP:SYNDICATED. Grung0r (talk) 07:26, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
- You're joking, right? Alright, this is ridiculous. And I'm not even all that invested in the continued existence of this article, but just on principle, what you're arguing is seriously messed up and I can't stand for it. I don't think there's any point in further discussing this so if you'd like, you can ask independent editors to deliberate on your objections.
Grung0r, what are you doing? First you propose on specious grounds that the page should be deleted as it does not meet notability standards. You ignore all my counter-arguments to your original objections and when the discussion comes to an impasse you just go ahead and nominate the article for deletion even though the page's notability is still up for discussion (reiterating the original specious arguments that have already been addressed). Then, instead of waiting for the community to assess the issue, you remove most content (including the infobox for some reason unbeknownst to man or god), stripping the article down to leave the one source that you claim should not be in the article anyway.
I wrote this page (along with a couple other ones) a while back while taking an interest in researching the Slovene political right. And look, I get it, it is of marginal interest. Actually I don't much care for its continued existence. However, most of the arguments you make against its existence and for removing content go against all precedent and logic and would have wider implications if applied across Wikipedia.
Just to address your latest edits: practically all parties have a History section - I don't see how that'd be "nonsense"; you give no explanation as to why the article should not have an infobox (as nearly all party articles do), you label the self-described agenda of the party as "propaganda" (I don't think the word means what you think it means), you label the leaders of the party as "non-notable" (again, I don't think the word means what you think it does), and, lastly, you wrote "their first and only election" in the intro despite the fact that no national elections have been held since.
I would greatly appreciate if you sought 3rd party input from either the AfD discussion, or lodge a request for comment before editing the page.
P.S.: "Patrtiansinship and vandalism." Please, elaborate.
Regards, -J Jay Hodec (talk) 07:14, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
- if you think that this page is "of marginal interest" and that you "don't much care for its continued existence" then why are you arguing with me? Just co-sign the page's deletion, and that will be the end of it. Why fight for a page you don't believe in? It makes no sense. If you believe this should continue to be a page on Wikipedia, tell me why. otherwise, make the case, a thing you have notably refused to do thus far. Grung0r (talk) 07:52, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
- First off, please, restore page content and seek consensus / wait for decision about the AfD that you yourself submitted. Otherwise, I may be forced to submit a report of disruptive editing.
- The fact that I'm not personally attached to a particular page just because I'm the author does not mean that I support the removal of any wiki pages based on the whims of a single editor (that are clearly not supported by wiki guidelines).
- I have answered all your objections already. Over and over again. Yet you chose to pretend that you've received no answer. Please, just stop and either file a request for comment or await the resolution of the AfD for an amicable resolution.
- e.g. my first reply to you. e.g. my first reply today. e.g. our discussion on the AfD page.
- The only "assertion" that I "refused to back up" is that sources which do not list full names of authors in bylines are somehow not reliable. By this metric, at least 5 major SLO media organisations that I can think of are not reliable (i.e. STA, RTV Slovenija, SiOL, Večer, Svet24) as these sometimes or always publish initials only. Furthermore, all major SLO media regularly rely on STA reporting (i.e. republish it in part or in full). Are all SLO media sources thus unreliable? Because this appears to be your main argument.
- Yes, none of the sources you site are reliable, verifiable second party sources, which is what is required for a legitimate Wikipedia source. Every source you mention is unreliable nonsense. Please cite a real, universally agreed upon reliable source. Otherwise, just concede the article should be deleted Grung0r (talk) 08:46, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
- Thank you for sharing your opinion. Since you're obviously not going to do it, I'm just going to lodge a request for comment since this isn't going anywhere. I hope we'll both accept the outcome as binding so we can finally resolve the dispute.