Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Donbass Association Malmö


 * 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   delete. Per the below consensus, this article's subject is not notable. &mdash; Coffee //  have a cup  //  beans  // 22:32, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Donbass Association Malmö

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This AfD is the result of the nomination of Fag Army, which closed as a merge and was eventually made into a redirect to Göran Hägglund. As it was decided that merging the two AfDs was not necessarily appropriate, I'm listing this as a separate AfD for the original nominator. The text for the original AfD reads:

I am posting this AfD on behalf of IP whose reason is: An editor suggested that I ask that these articles be deleted. They both concern Swedish facebook groups that were reported in Swedish national newspapers that discussed exactly one illegal act, (a) respectively hitting a cabinet minister in the face with a pie and (b) putting up posters on buildings in Malmö supporting Donbass insurgents and attacking Kiev's government in the city of Malmö. (a) Fag Army's pie-thrower was named in the media. Please note that the Swedish article was deleted, following a discussion on the article talk page. (b) Email from the Donbass Association Malmö (misnamed) was reported in an unreliable source; this email states that the facebook group was founded by four 20-30 year olds who fear having their names revealed. I can imagine that one or more may not yet be an adult. I have not investigated these articles and express no opinion. JohnCD (talk) 18:53, 6 January 2015 (UTC) PanydThe muffin is not subtle 13:56, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  14:33, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  14:33, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  14:33, 19 January 2015 (UTC)


 * wrote: "Is this even an organization? As far as I can see, the Swedish Donbass Association is mostly a minor Facebook page with just a handful of active followers. Of all that is written in the article, almost nothing substantial is written about the organization itself. Much is written about the alleged organization's purpose and views, but very little is written that explains who it is that has this purpose and holds these opinions. Unless additional information provides more information about the organization, I suggest that this article is deleted. EriFr (talk) 01:56, 11 January 2015 (UTC)"
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:32, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:32, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

, is a 10:19, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment: Much discussion about Donbass Association Malmö occured at Articles for deletion/Fag Army, which ended up as a merge. The detailed discussions of policies and guidelines (with quotations) are relevant. It is obvious which organization is addressed in most many, but not all, comments. Draw your own conclusions! is a 16:23, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Now exactly 2 Swedish reliable sources exist, and they have each been cited. Each discusses the same event. There is no RS-coverage of any other activity (or of anything).
 * Comment - Though I appreciate the attempt to retrieve participation from the indeed confusing Fag Army AfD, I have to object to the good faith reproduction of that AfD discussion as a whole on WP:TPO grounds. My own comments there, for example, only applied to the Fag Army article but only one of my three posts there made that caveat explicit. So even though it's bolded I think the shift in context could be misleading and/or confusing. A ping seems sufficient to draw the attention of those who were involved without repeating their statements for them. --&mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 19:55, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

is a 10:27, 26 January 2015 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, N ORTH A MERICA 1000 02:03, 27 January 2015 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
 * Keep - per WP:GNG.--BabbaQ (talk) 21:50, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Please explain how GNG applies, since there is minimal coverage of exactly one (illegal) event, rather than coverage of two or more events---perhaps after reviewing the discussion of Fag Army, in particular when  explained that Fag Army was non-notable--and Fag Army had much more coverage for a member's pie-throwing incident (and subsequent trial) than DAM/DFM has had (for its one night of postering).  Recall also that (according to the close) the consensus was that Fag Army was not notable and that its content should be merged. is a 23:05, 27 January 2015 (UTC) 09:55, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, N ORTH A MERICA 1000 03:51, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete I am not convinced there is enough evidence for notability.  DGG ( talk ) 21:52, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete: Sadly, no evidence of notability. Wikic¤l¤gyt@lk to M£ 18:07, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete: While the purported organization has two cited sources in major Swedish papers, if you look at the sources (via google translate) the Svenska Dagbladet is merely using the existence of the facebook page and the group's posters as the lead for a general discussion of Russian propaganda efforts in the Baltic. The second article, in Nyheter Idag, is a simply reprise of the first article: "skrev Claes Arvidssoni en ledare hos Svenska Dagbladet angående affischerna." So in my view there really aren't any reliable secondary sources with significant coverage.  Fiachra10003 (talk) 14:40, 10 February 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.