Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Federal popular initiative "against mass immigration"


 * 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 Speedy keep. I'm not an admin, but I did a double take when I saw the deletion notice and came here out of curiosity. I was going to vote speedy keep, but I think it's pretty clear what the consensus is.—Neil 02:09, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Federal popular initiative "against mass immigration"

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Article is a needless content fork of Swiss referendums, 2014, with less information, a lack of references and an incorrect title. I see no need for a separate article. Article was initially redirected to the Swiss referendums one, then prodded after the redirect was undone. The prod was then removed, so bringing it to AfD. Number  5  7  16:55, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Although the article still needs improvement, its aim is to provide much more detail that the page about multiple votations that you mentioned. Féd Poppy (talk) 16:57, 9 February 2014 (UTC).
 * You can expand the Swiss referendums page (which is still a stub( without creating a separate article. Number   5  7  17:01, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
 * You could accept that it takes some time to develop a long developed article and encourage users to contribute rather than deleting content. Féd Poppy (talk) 17:05, 9 February 2014 (UTC).
 * My point is that you should be developing the existing article, not creating a pointless contentfork. Number   5  7  17:07, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
 * The problem with the approach that you advocate is that it would be likely to result in edit wars over precisely when to spin off a daughter article. I would suggest that if there is enough coverage to justify a daughter article, we should hesitate to insist on a merge only because of how much content happens to be present at the moment. It should be possible to copy and paste all the material from the parent article in a matter of minutes if that has not already been done. James500 (talk) 03:19, 11 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep: The Swiss voters have just voted to pass this, I think it will have sufficient GNG sources once the media gets hold of it.  The C of E God Save the Queen!  ( talk ) 17:47, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
 * The subject is obviously notable, but the question is why a content fork was needed from the article that originally covered it? Number   5  7  18:01, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep. The outcome of the referendum is front page news in European news media, e.g. The Guardian. Given the amount of coverage, and the amount of political issues the implementation is likely to give rise to, a dedicated subarticle per WP:SS is appropriate.  Sandstein   18:36, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep. This is a historic Swiss referendum with huge implications. The current content is obviously horrible, but this will hopefully change soon. --Lukati (talk) 19:37, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep. The topic is definitely notable and it makes sense to have a separate article for it as the three referendums in the mother article deals with very varied issues: abortion, immigration and financing of railway infrastructure. The article should be renamed though as I don't like to see quotation marks in article titles. Regards, Iselilja (talk) 20:15, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep per Notability. Vote widely discussed in European media and by European politicians. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 23:18, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:54, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:54, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:54, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:54, 10 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Snowball keep. Even the nominator admits that the topic is obviously notable. There is no need for this to continue. James500 (talk) 01:19, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is notable, but it is covered in far more depth in the original article. Why is a fork with less content required? Number   5  7  08:05, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Why don't you just expand the article? And as for the title being incorrect, why don't you just move the article? James500 (talk) 09:02, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Number57: There is no natural connection between the topics in the mother article (immigration, abortion, railway structures), expcept that they are referendums held on the same day. It's natural to make separate articles for those referendums that are particular significant. An article on the immigration referendum naturally relates to other articles on immigration; while the abortion referendum naturally relates to other articles on abortion etc. (allthough the abortion referendum may not be so significant that it needs its own article). The immigration referendum will also relate to the Switzerland-EU relation in a way that the two other referendums will not. In the US, there are also often elections and referendums held on the same day and many of these will have separate articles, like for instance California Proposition 8 (2008) (one of many referendums in California that day). Iselilja (talk) 09:28, 10 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep: article about an important and actual issue that should be improved rather than deletedGelehrter11 (talk) 10:57, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I have moved the above comment from the top of this page because the nomination is supposed to go at the top, and I think that the placing of the above comment at the top of the page would be likely to cause confusion. James500 (talk) 03:10, 11 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment: Article in its state aside, this has been a huge deal in the country with bolts of reactions from countries all around the globe, particularily all over the EU. The subject is most definitely notable and merits its own article. ~ | twsx | talkcont | ~ 11:09, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep: Clear-cut pass of WP:GNG & WP:LASTING. ~ | twsx | talkcont | ~ 11:09, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep: Useful. But perhaps re-titled as Federal popular initiative “Against Mass Immigration”? --Mlang.Finn (talk) 12:49, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
 * What about speedykeep for the clear reasons above? --193.5.216.100 (talk) 13:16, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep: Within the next few months we will see if this becomes a huge issue for the EU, and the updates will make the article stand-alone. If not, it may then be deleted if the Swiss Referendum page can easily contain the information. comment added by 76.68.250.205 (talk) 16:39, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep, obviously a good deal of secondary source coverage from multiple respected references. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 18:14, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep, obviously notable referendum widely covered in the international press and with many long-term implications. I wonder if User:Number 57 would have even thought of deleting an article about one of the Referendums in the United Kingdom.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 07:46, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Clearly you are unfamiliar with my contributions. I've created well over 100 articles on Swiss referendums (almost all the articles in Category:Referendums in Switzerland are my work), but because there are so damn many (more than 500 to date), I have combined them into articles dealing with referendums in each year, hence why I don't think a separate article to Swiss referendums, 2014 (also an article I started) is necessary. Number   5  7  09:45, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Combining them was a good idea and I thank you for your work; however some referendums are more important than others, and this one clearly deserves its own article.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 14:39, 12 February 2014 (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.