Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Citizens' Coalition


 * 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. The "delete" arguments seem to be veering into personal attacks and did not challenge the sources supplied by the "keep" !voters sufficiently. Because the conversation is getting personal, I am not inclined to relist this. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  11:41, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Citizens' Coalition

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Per request on my talk page for editors not familiar with en-wiki AFD. See this permalink to the discussion for the editors' reasoning. Personally, I have no opinion about the subject.  So Why  14:46, 26 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete, not enough significant coverage in independent WP:RS. Of the nine sources in the article four are from the party itself, one (Wilderäng) is a blog, two are links to official records that verify that the party exist and only two are from a news source. There are some more mentions in WP:RS that are not as of now included as sources, but not enough to reach notability. FWIW, the article about the party has been deleted as non-notable on the Swedish Wikipedia, citing that they haven't gained sufficiently significant attention by the world at large and over a period of time, and that no representative for the party has been elected in a public election . (I know that the last criterion isn't included in WP:N, but I think that it's relevant to the discussion about notability.)Sjö (talk) 05:56, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I do not see myself as eligible to vote since I have been inactive here for several years. But you should be aware of that the name "Medborgerlig Samling" has been used by more than one Swedish political party. sv:Medborgerlig samling for example existed in the 1960's. -- Innocent bystander (talk) 07:42, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for pointing that out, I had forgotten about that article. For those of you that don't read Swedish, it's about a 1964-1968 cooperation between right and center-right parties. It has nothing to do with the current party with the same name.Sjö (talk) 11:14, 27 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Since I'm affiliated with the party I cannot vote. However, I'd like to point out a few things: Google turns out about 23k hits for "Medborgerlig Samling" https://www.google.se/search?source=hp&q=%22medborgerlig+samling%22. The party has representatives in at least two municipalities that I know of (Laholm and Sollentuna). It currently has about 1200 members which would make it the third largest of the parties outside of the Swedish Parliament and likely the fastest growing. As for the situation in Swedish wikipedia – things got very heated in those discussions and the decision to remove was certainly not unanimous. Hmc1282171021 (talk) 15:40, 27 September 2017 (UTC)


 * A few recent links:
 * http://www.hallandsposten.se/nyheter/laholm/kahlin-och-klinker-lämnar-m-för-annat-parti-1.4124850
 * http://www.expressen.se/ledare/susanna-birgersson/medborgerlig-samling-sa-sansade-att-de-inte-syns-/
 * http://www.corren.se/nyheter/norrkoping/nya-partier-siktar-pa-riksdagen-om4810123.aspx
 * https://mitti.se/nyheter/parti-entre-vasby/
 * https://www.svt.se/nyheter/lokalt/halland/stora-planer-for-nya-partiet


 * Keep. As has been pointed out above, there exists plenty of coverage in independent media, and the party itself represents an important rational new perspective in Swedish politics. The original discussion seems like a thinly veiled attempt to prevent the larger public from getting informed about its existence. David A (talk) 17:37, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
 * To quote myself from the main talk page for the article:
 * I would argue that given the constantly increasing massive amounts of crime and other social problems (355000 elderly in poverty, lack of social security even for gravely disabled, falling education and health care standards, widespread Islamism, etcetera) following the enormous immigration to Sweden from the 3rd world, it is inevitable that the parties that openly talk about said problems and promise to do something about them will continuously grow, no matter how much the Orwellian censorship and thought crime advocates attempt to stop it.
 * Currently we have to choose between the Sweden Democrats, who have an extremely suspicious history, and the Citizens' Coalition, who are not privately any more extreme than the sentiments that they are openly advocating.
 * As such, it is in Sweden's best long-term interest to allow awareness of a party that can counteract the Sweden Democrats, and play well with the traditional alternatives. From a rational perspective, your combined efforts to shut them up are strongly playing against your own interests, and it would be much preferable to search for news articles and other references to improve the quality of this page rather than delete it outright. David A (talk) 04:45, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

In short: not relevant for an article on Wikipedia. Furthermore, the party leadership has made it clear that they wish to use Wikipedia for their 2018 election campagn, and been very agressive towards Wikipedia in their effort to do so. That is not the purpose of Wikipedia, and it shows how small the party really is. Dnm (talk) 23:27, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete The reasons:
 * The party has existed since only 2016 (came to be through a party split from another really small party founded 2014).
 * There are almost no coverage of the party in the media besides in some alternative media (and almost nothing there either besides bloggs they control) and the parties own debate articles.
 * The party has no sets in any parliament (local, regional, or national).
 * The party claims to have 1000 members but the number is much lower.
 * There are no indipendent sources about the party (at the moment the party writes its own article on Wikipedia).
 * This is quite an accusation Dnm, it also happens to be rather wrong:
 * 1- That the party is - in fact - the same as the party called "Borgerlig Framtid" from 2014 is verifiable from here: https://www.ratsit.se/8024883467-MEDBORGERLIG_SAMLING where it is obvious that this is indeed the party registered 2014-05-01. Compare this to the splinter group: https://www.ratsit.se/8025044184-BORGERLIG_FRAMTID which is registered 2016-09-22.
 * 2- Secondly, the media links above are just some recent coverage. "Almost no coverage" is clearly not a well defined word.
 * 3- It is also untrue that the party has no seats in any parliament. They have at least 5 (might be more) in local assemblies. They were not elected there on the party name obviously – the party hardly existed during the election of 2014 – but that is not the same as them not having representation.
 * 4- The actual number of members is closer to 1200. Since this is not independently verifiable (membership figures for political parties are not official in Sweden), the only figure we have are the self-reported ones. Your claim is basically that they lie here: https://www.medborgerligsamling.se/medborgerlig-samling-har-passerat-1-000-medlemmar/. Of course, you have nothing to support this claim, but just state this as a fact. However, I am not aware of a single journalist or political analyst challenging those numbers. So this again is painting a false picture of the situation.
 * 5- Finally the claim that there are no independent sources about the party. Again, this is contradicted by the wikipedia article itself, which uses independent sources for everything except to reference the politics advocated by the party. The articles above, describing the party in similar terms as the wikipedia article also clearly contradicts this.


 * Since you, Adville, Yger and a few more have been very active in trying to remove the party from Swedish wikipedia, consider if you are really impartial in the matter of this article. Hmc1282171021 (talk) 08:26, 28 September 2017 (UTC)


 * We have not only tried, we have removed it through a broad consensus. You are not relevant (yet). And about the question of being impartial, you and the rest of the MED leadership has terrorized Swedish Wikipedia for months, backtalking us, trying to disclose user identities, sending hordes of trolls our way and so on. And, your account was created för one reason, and One Reason only: To edit and defend your party MED. The users you are listning as non impartial has been active on Wikipedia for 5-10 years and even more, editing thousends of articles. So, think again about what impartial means.


 * The claims i have made above stands and has been proven on Swedish Wikipedia. Now you and your party are just trying to find a backdoor into Swedish Wikipedia. Dnm (talk) 08:51, 28 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Such baseless accusations. There has only been one (1) account affiliated with the party (this one). This is clearly seen in the discussions on Swedish wikipedia. "The MED leadership has terrorized"... I am frankly astounded that you can make such bold-faced lies without a single reference to back it up. If these claims "have been proven", then it should be easy to link to references proving them instead of stating that they are proven. Note that I am the one linking to independent articles proving my statements, whereas you, with accusations and the argument "it has been proven on Swedish Wikipedia", do not.
 * Even if we should take Swedish Wikipedia as an authority your statements are proven false. For example, the claim 1000+ members was indeed raised there, but no-one challenged it – it was simply dismissed as "not especially impressive" (See LPfi "5 september 2017 kl. 13.42" sv:Diskussion:Medborgerlig_Samling_(2014)). This was a problem in the Swedish Wikipedia discussion too. Lots of unsubstantiated "facts" being thrown around, with minimum references / proof.


 * I'll back out of the discussion at this point. I trust English wikipedia users to see for themselves who is using facts / and who is using opinions + accusations in the discussion. The sample above is rather representative of the level of discussion on Swedish WP. You yourself called on any discussion on the party to be removed immediately and indiscriminately: "Diskussion ska inte uppmuntras istället sja inläggen raderas. dnm" ("Discussion should not be encouraged, instead comments should be erased") (again, see sv:Diskussion:Medborgerlig_Samling_(2014))
 * Hmc1282171021 (talk) 09:29, 28 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete, according to what sjö and dnm says. The plenty of coverage in media is mostly for the old party from the 60th. The two seats mentioned that they have in a local parlament are member from other parties that have changed party during this Electoral period, they were not vote in (and are called political wild). As long as there are almost no coverage in the papers we can not write an independent article about this small and only one year old party. (I was also involved in the discussions on svwp about this party and have tried to read a lot about it to see if we could keep it as a neutral article. The lack of sources and the short period of existence made the answer no there too) Adville (talk) 03:57, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Please Hmc1282171021, tell your friends to not harrasing me on my Swedish user page because I voted no here and protected the old party page for Medborgerlig samling. Now I had to protect my page too. (For english readers, this had been a topic on svwp since summer. Just because they have some ground soliders that know how to use internet and create trolls we shall not accept their party as an article until we find it relevant -eg more than 3-4 local papers) Adville (talk) 14:13, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Adville, I sincerely have no idea what you are talking about. AND I must question why you're making these made up accusations on this deletion page in the first place. Hmc1282171021 (talk) 16:59, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Because of this that happened today. And it is related to this discussion. Adville (talk) 17:27, 28 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete As above, and as Adville states no proper analys exist from an trustworthy third-party source. So besides lack of notabality it is also impossible to write a neutral verified article of the subject.Yger (talk) 12:47, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep Well referenced article about a serious party that unfortunately is hit by campaign trying to keep it off Wikipedia. Hepcat65 (talk) 19:54, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
 * If the party is serious or not is of no interest. And the article is not well referenced:
 * The first source is the MED-partyblogg.
 * The second source is the MED-party homepage.
 * The third source is the MED-party homepage.
 * The forth source is an article based on a MED-pressrelease with a few questions asked.
 * The fifth source is a MED-pressrelease.
 * The sixth source is a blogg.
 * The seventh source is a automatic register which lists everything that has a identification number (a person or organization/corporation).
 * The eighth source is a automatic register which lists every party who said that they wants to run for election.
 * The ninth source is the MED-party homepage.
 * Do you seriously mean that this is well referenced? My guess is that you have ties to the party itself, no one else would consider this passable...
 * The party writes its own article. Be honest about that. There is nothing here. No third party sources or anything with substance besides what the party wants to say about itself. Dnm (talk) 22:31, 28 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep In Sweden it's becoming an ever increasing embarrassment for Wikipedia that there exists no Swedish page for the party. People from the general public, who read about the party in the press and in social media, on instinct go to Swedish Wikipedia for more information, but are surprised to find none, having to turn to English Wikipedia instead. This is not about what's good or bad for the party, or whether the page is good or bad; it's about expectations on Wikipedia. OutphilosopherS (talk) 05:00, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Please explain to us Swedes how we are doing wrong when we erase an article because of poor sources, when we have tried for 2-3 months to find good ones. We on svwp thinks it is no good to have a pov article just because we must have an article, and this is not the only party wanting to have an article because of the election. This is the platform to show we exist. Wikipedia should not be an electoral propaganda machine just because the party has not yet done an impact on media. I know we will have a good article about the party whithin a year, but we can not allow us to make it a pov article just for the sake of existing. So please explain how you think about the sources here and not only "find sources" for we are now newcommers, we know how to find sources. Adville (talk) 05:43, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Adville Aside from the links above, here is a sample of articles in independent media that should have been straightforward to find by googling:
 * https://www.svt.se/nyheter/lokalt/varmland/kdu-s-ordforande-avgar
 * http://www.svt.se/nyheter/lokalt/varmland/borgerliga-alltfor-vanstervridna
 * http://www.aftonbladet.se/nyheter/article22244247.ab
 * https://www.svt.se/nyheter/lokalt/halland/uteslutningshotade-moderater-haller-presskonferens?
 * https://www.svt.se/nyheter/lokalt/ost/rolf-k-nilsson-lamnar-moderaterna
 * https://www.svt.se/nyheter/lokalt/skane/risken-ar-att-det-blir-kattskit-av-alltihop
 * https://www.svt.se/nyheter/lokalt/halland/laholms-kommun-jo-anmals
 * http://www.laholmstidning.se/2017/02/17/de-har-kickat-igang-valrorelsen-till-2018/
 * http://www.laholmstidning.se/2017/03/20/partier-kommer-overklaga-till-forvaltningsratten/
 * http://www.laholmstidning.se/2017/02/01/vildar-far-flytta-till-eget-horn/
 * http://www.laholmstidning.se/2017/02/02/nytt-forsok-fa-bort-kahlin/
 * http://www.laholmstidning.se/2017/08/26/kahlin-har-gjort-allt-vad-jag-kunnat/
 * http://www.laholmstidning.se/2017/03/20/forskoleprotest-i-ranneslov/
 * http://www.hallandsposten.se/nyheter/laholm/ingen-extern-utredning-av-läckta-personakter-1.4674176
 * http://www.hallandsposten.se/nyheter/laholm/politiker-vill-stötta-visselblås-1.4601307
 * http://www.hallandsposten.se/nyheter/laholm/mikael-kahlin-jo-anmäler-laholms-kommun-1.4583325
 * http://www.hallandsposten.se/nyheter/laholm/kahlin-kommunen-mörklägger-1.4570611
 * http://www.hallandsposten.se/nyheter/laholm/oppositionen-pratar-ihop-sig-inför-valet-1.4371575
 * http://www.hallandsposten.se/nyheter/laholm/kommunråd-kräver-besked-från-kahlin-1.4180639
 * http://sverigesradio.se/sida/artikel.aspx?programid=128&artikel=6641722
 * http://sverigesradio.se/sida/artikel.aspx?programid=128&artikel=6641100
 * https://www.svt.se/nyheter/lokalt/skane/smapartierna-vinner-mark-i-skane
 * https://www.svt.se/nyheter/svtforum/alliansen-utmanas?
 * http://sverigesradio.se/sida/artikel.aspx?programid=93&artikel=6370525
 * http://sverigesradio.se/sida/artikel.aspx?programid=112&artikel=6473769
 * http://sverigesradio.se/sida/artikel.aspx?programid=159&artikel=6473265
 * http://www.dagensopinion.se/josefin-utas-tar-plats-borgerlig-framtids-partistyrelse
 * http://www.dagensopinion.se/moderaterna-som-borgerlig-framtid-värvat-över
 * http://www.dagensopinion.se/c-och-sd-avhopp-ger-borgerlig-framtid-plats-fullmäktige
 * http://www.dagensopinion.se/borgerlig-framtid-värvar-värmlands-kdu-bas
 * http://www.dagensopinion.se/borgerlig-framtid-vill-ha-finsk-läroplikt
 * http://www.dagensopinion.se/borgerlig-framtid-tvingas-byta-namn-maktstrid
 * http://www.dagensopinion.se/borgerlig-framtid-så-skapar-vi-riktigt-jobbskapande-näringspolitik
 * http://www.dagensopinion.se/de-hoppade-c-och-m-borgerlig-framtid
 * http://www.dagensopinion.se/borgerlig-framtid-sprider-svenska-våren
 * http://www.dagensopinion.se/borgerlig-framtid-hottar-upp-både-sajten-och-partiprogrammet
 * http://www.dagensopinion.se/sveriges-nya-parti-medborgerlig-samling
 * http://www.dagensopinion.se/moderaternas-konkurrent-vi-växer-så-knakar
 * http://www.dagensopinion.se/de-startar-konkurrent-till-moderaterna
 * http://www.dagensopinion.se/nystartat-parti-ställer-upp-riksdagsvalet
 * http://www.dagensopinion.se/medborgerlig-samling-jo-anmäler-myndigheten-samhällsskydd-och-beredskap
 * http://www.dagensopinion.se/politiskt-parti-sällar-sig-till-jo-anmälarna-mot-svenska-institutet
 * http://makthavare.se/2017/07/03/de-ar-smapartierna-som-krigar-om-utrymmet-i-visby/
 * http://makthavare.se/2016/02/11/utas-outas-lamnar-miljopartiet-for-borgerlig-framtid/
 * http://makthavare.se/2015/04/27/borgerlig-framtid-vill-utmana-alliansen-och-sd/
 * If you would like a sample of the actual politics the party advocates (instead of reading on their site) you could have a look at a sample of the opinion pieces published in major media:
 * https://www.svt.se/nyheter/lokalt/halland/stora-planer-for-nya-partiet?
 * https://www.svt.se/opinion/wallgren-malmberg-lenke-om-jarva
 * https://www.svt.se/opinion/nya-vapendirektivet-ogenomtankt-symbolpolitik?
 * https://www.svt.se/opinion/jamstalldhet-ar-inte-detsamma-som-likhet
 * https://www.svt.se/opinion/svar-till-spf-seniorerna
 * http://www.expressen.se/kvallsposten/debatt-kvp/forhandla-inte-bort-rattsstaten/
 * http://www.expressen.se/debatt/detta-sager-nagonting-sorgligt-om-var-tid/
 * http://www.expressen.se/debatt/freda-landslagen-fran-sana-har-pr-jippon/
 * http://www.expressen.se/debatt/sd-kommer-att-fa-minst-25-procent-2018/
 * http://www.expressen.se/debatt/ingenting-forskonas-nar-allt-politiseras/
 * http://www.aftonbladet.se/debatt/a/84yP1/toppuppdragen-gar-till-regeringstrogna
 * http://www.expressen.se/kvallsposten/debatt-kvp/minska-utjamnings-bidraget-till-malmo/
 * http://www.expressen.se/debatt/vilka-grupper-ska-det-lagstiftas-om-harnast/
 * http://www.expressen.se/debatt/konskvotering-ar-inte-jamstalldhet/
 * http://www.expressen.se/debatt/mp-har-forlorat-sin-sjal--nu-lamnar-jag-partiet/
 * http://www.expressen.se/debatt/bojkotten-av-sd-far-inte-ga-fore-allt-annat/
 * http://www.expressen.se/gt/ledare/debatt-krafttag-mot-skottlossningar-nu/
 * http://www.expressen.se/debatt/slang-inte-bidrag-efter-privata-klubbar-1/
 * http://www.expressen.se/debatt/dags-att-satta-stopp-for-roffarmentaliteten/
 * http://www.expressen.se/debatt/vad-bidrar-jag-med-som-en-man-inte-kan/
 * http://www.gp.se/nyheter/debatt/politisk-korruption-har-blivit-vardagsmat-1.4382139
 * If you are still unable to find any facts about the party given the above, let me know and I'll google some more for you. Hmc1282171021 (talk) 14:34, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Given all of the above sources, it seems much preferable to simply work on improving the article by using them, than to make a group effort to attempt to delete it outright. All of this seems extremely dishonest and partisan. David A (talk) 14:38, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
 * It is now more than clear that also David A is a MED-user-account. Do improve the article about your party instead of calling other dishonest and partisan. The only ones thats dishonest and partisan are the many MED-accounts that are pushing an agenda towards Wikipedia (on and outside of the project). Dnm (talk) 19:50, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
 * And that is just what we say in Sweden: Debate and opinion articles from the own party are not independent news. Please we who understand swedish and are not in this party can see through your bias and pov. So tiresome. Adville (talk) 21:35, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Dear Adville. Those were 45 news articles on top (not debate/opinion ones). The later 21 opinion pieces was just for reference (as I wrote) to see the actual political messages - in case references to that was needed. You claimed you had found no good articles while searching for 2-3 months.
 * You cannot possibly claim that the 45 articles mentioned here are debate/opinion pieces. Even non-swedish speakers should be able to use google translate to assure themselves of the accuracy of my statements. Are you perhaps claiming that despite all these articles on the party you're completely unable to gather any verifiable facts on the party? If so, how is that possible?
 * Is the article inaccurate and biased? Fine, improve it! I didn't write any of it, nor was I involved in the edits. I can think of ways to improve it too, but I don't want to do any edits due to my affiliation with the party. Or are you saying "it's biased, lets remove it!" – dismissing it on grounds of neutrality instead of relevance? If so, why is it impossible to improve it using those 45 articles above as a starting point?
 * Also, the method of calling anyone who doesn't agree with you a "MED-user-account" is an attempt at guilt by association. This was used on the SvWiki which led to group banning of wildly different accounts only because they did not agree with you: "Only MED-supporters can support this page, consequently, anyone who supports having this page is a MED-supporter".
 * Furthermore you also neglect to mention that several admins did not agree with the decision to remove the page, even on the SvWiki (where the bar for having a page on a political party is – inexplicably – much higher than other types of organizations).
 * So please, can we have a discussion based on actual facts please? I have shown these 45 articles, so clearly there *are* independent articles. We've hopefully also established (despite Dnm's claims to the contrary) that the party does have a membership of over 1000. Which then would make it the third largest party outside of the Swedish parliament after F! and PP. EnWP clearly has no particular bias against smaller parties, and they are mentioned here with pages and yet you do not target them for deletion requests. So what in particular is it that makes it important that Citizens' Coalition is deleted? I think Yger even filed for a quick delete of the page originally. Is there some real argument to be had, or does the argument boil down to "it's not allowed on the SvWiki, so it can't be shown here either"? Hmc1282171021 (talk) 23:54, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Actually, I am not a member of any party, as I find all of the major ones distasteful and/or irrational and fundamentalist for one reason or another (not to mention that I am kept far too busy to be politically active), but I have read articles about the Citizens' Coalition lately, and find their politics interesting. Given your collaborative resolve to see the article expunged from any version of Wikipedia, even ones where you are othervise inactive, you seem far more biased than myself. David A (talk) 09:41, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
 * So please, can we have a discussion based on actual facts please? I have shown these 45 articles, so clearly there *are* independent articles. We've hopefully also established (despite Dnm's claims to the contrary) that the party does have a membership of over 1000. Which then would make it the third largest party outside of the Swedish parliament after F! and PP. EnWP clearly has no particular bias against smaller parties, and they are mentioned here with pages and yet you do not target them for deletion requests. So what in particular is it that makes it important that Citizens' Coalition is deleted? I think Yger even filed for a quick delete of the page originally. Is there some real argument to be had, or does the argument boil down to "it's not allowed on the SvWiki, so it can't be shown here either"? Hmc1282171021 (talk) 23:54, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Actually, I am not a member of any party, as I find all of the major ones distasteful and/or irrational and fundamentalist for one reason or another (not to mention that I am kept far too busy to be politically active), but I have read articles about the Citizens' Coalition lately, and find their politics interesting. Given your collaborative resolve to see the article expunged from any version of Wikipedia, even ones where you are othervise inactive, you seem far more biased than myself. David A (talk) 09:41, 1 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep Well established, although small, officially registered political party that fulfills the EnWP’s notability criteria. Can’t see how SvWP’s decision should guide the decision here. If the subject matter reaches the relevant criteria – then keep. I’ll keep on working on it, adding the references above (Thnx!)Possible Declaration (talk) 08:44, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Note that this Aftonbladet article states that in 2016 a Member Riksdag Josefin Utas (who should have an article as a member of a national legislature) left the Environmental Party to join this Party.  Also Note that party name is rendered Borgerlig Fremtid in Aftonbladet and, while I am not certain which usage is more common, it may be important to search both spellings.  Searching "Medborgerlig Samling" + "Josefin Utas" on gNews  produces more than sufficient validation of notability.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:08, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep as per my searches above.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:08, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
 * User:E.M.Gregory. Thanks for your try to research this. I notice your are not Swedish and therefor your are neutral. I have however to say you were mislead by the language barriere. She was only in a local parliament and wanted to be elected to the riksdag. She wasnt. So she should not have an article here nor  does it make this party valid for an own article yet. Best regards Adville (talk) 23:23, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Despite my error, the news coverage of this local politician, does offer WP:SIGCOV of this party. As do many of ther sources cited by editors above.  And there are some English-language sourced, such as this 2017 Master's degree thesis Intersects of nationalism and populism in Swedish parliamentary elections.  I continue to opine Keep.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:49, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry to bother you again E.M.Gregory, but the mentioning in that master is about the Old party from the 60th. It is not the same party. Adville (talk) 05:48, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Coverage of this party, including coverage related to Josefin Utas is, nevertheless, valid WP:SIGCOV of this new party. a quick read for English speaking editors can be found at this counter-narrrative blog, [BOYCOTT OF THE SWEDEN DEMOCRATS FINALLY LOOKING STUPID TO OTHER PARTIES, which links to background stories.[[User:E.M.Gregory|E.M.Gregory]] (talk) 10:09, 3 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep. Notability evident per extensive coverage in national and regional public as well as private media, as argued. As for objections to efforts of ostracism by a few Swedish user accounts regarding the introduction of this article, for convenience please consider addressing such concerns on Wikipedia talk:Swedish Wikipedians' notice board. Chicbyaccident (talk) 12:53, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, the fact that at least 3 administrators on the Swedish Wikipedia appear to be determined to censor all public information about a valid political party, is quite disconcerting in terms of the requirements of a fact-focused NPOV professional perspective. Especially if this is an indication of how they are othervise doing their jobs. David A (talk) 15:48, 2 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep. This is a new political party in Sweden but its leading members have been quite present in the political debate with high-profile articles, etc. I am not affiliated with the party but I have read several of their articles. abelson (talk) 14:37, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete, per Sjö and Adville. I've read a lot of the sources given here, and would not consider them to confer notability, though if it changes during election season I might reconsider. A lot of the mentions are in passing, and focus more on the specific defected politicians (and their former party) who seem adept at getting their names and faces in local newspapers. The arguments on Swedish Wikipedia also looked convincing to me. Ratatosk Jones (talk) 04:29, 3 October 2017 (UTC)


 * 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.