Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Costa Rican National Socialist Party


 * 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 no consensus. Whether to keep or redirect, that is.  Sandstein  11:42, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Costa Rican National Socialist Party

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Previously tagged with PROD. PROD was removed. The article is completely unsourced and has been tagged as such for close to six months w/o improvement. This was less a political party than a local overseas chapter of the Nazi Party with less than 100 members. There is no claim of any notable activity on their part. A Google failed to yield anything that rings the notability bell. The article currently fails both WP:GNG and WP:V. Ad Orientem (talk) 20:48, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Latin America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:31, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:32, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:32, 16 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Move to Neo-Nazism where it is mentioned as my searches (News, Books, highbeam, thefreelibrary and Newspapers Archive) found nothing to suggest solid notability aside from one Books link. SwisterTwister   talk  22:31, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I assume you meant Redirect? -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:35, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 03:01, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
 * The !vote above comes across like a merge rationale to me, which is what moving content typically entails. Pinging for clarification. North America1000 03:02, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I am not opposed on principal to a merge. However the material needs to be sourced which at present it is not. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:26, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I was talking about a redirect actually since this is currently mentioned at that article. SwisterTwister   talk  04:01, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the clarification. I am fine with a redirect. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:06, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the clarification. North America1000 04:41, 24 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep - a simple check of the Spanish article shows it is of sufficient length, is sourced and the real name of the party was Partido Nazi de Costa Rica (Nazi Party of Costa Rica). —Мандичка YO 😜 03:16, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I see only a passing reference to the subject in the linked article. Even assuming the linked site is RS it certainly does not meet the standards requiring in depth coverage from multiple reliable sources in GNG. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:26, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
 * The linked article is to reference that is the actual name, which is what should be used to do a search for sources. Additionally, the article mentions that all the members were arrested and put in concentration camps, which is notable even though they were not a political party that ran in elections. —Мандичка YO 😜 04:57, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95  &#40; Talk &#41;  14:11, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep per the policy of Ignore All Rules. I favor the inclusion of articles on all political parties, their youth sections, and their leaders without regard to size or ideology. This is the sort of material that readers have reason to expect in a comprehensive encyclopedia. Carrite (talk) 15:47, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree that any political party would be inherently notable, especially (but not necessarily) if they at least once got on the ballot. The problem here is that this "party" was never formally organized, it was a group of (at their peak) 66 Nazi sympathizer who assembled at the German Club in San José, and comprised mostly German and Italian expatriots or immigrants (with questionable right to vote). They were indeed perceived as a nuisance (according to the only source presented) but IMO can not be perceived as a political party. Kraxler (talk) 18:22, 9 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep per Carrite.  For every pokemon, third-rate footballer, or dubious TV show article, we should have ten articles on obscure political parties.  -- RoySmith (talk) 13:07, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment Based on a number of similar AfDs that I have participated in over the years. I believe the community has tended to extend presumptive notability to political parties, including small or fringe parties, provided they actually got on the ballot. Articles about micro parties that never gained ballot access have generally been deleted unless they satisfied one or more of the criteria in GNG. This party does not appear to meet GNG and there is no evidence they ever got on the ballot. While I respect the right to invoke IAR in exceptional cases, and have done so my self a couple of times, I believe that such should be done with extreme care. My approach to IAR is, with apologies to one of our former presidents, that it should be safe, legal and rare. The two IAR !votes above seem to be less about an unusual topic that is in need of a one off exception than an attempt to nullify GNG and grant blanket notability to an entire subject genre. I believe very strongly that if this were proposed as a change to the notability guidelines it would fail, probably badly. And again, based on previous experience on AfD, I do not believe that the community has shown any inclination to grant across the board notability to every micro-political party that ever existed. Thus, with regret, I must disagree with the two IAR Keep !votes. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:07, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Merge and move relevant information to Neo-Nazism where the party is mentioned. Liz  Read! Talk! 20:54, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I am not opposed on principle to a merge. The problem is that 90+% of the article is completely unsourced. So at this point I am not sure what can actually be moved. Barring a dramatic improvement in sourcing, I think a redirect, as discussed above, makes more sense. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:00, 9 July 2015 (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.