Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Homeland League


 * 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 redirect to 2019 European Parliament election in Slovenia. If there is improved coverage this can be undone and discussed again if there is still dispute Spartaz Humbug! 10:47, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Homeland League

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

fails wp:org and wp:gng. A tiny political party with no accomplishments or notable people involved, sourced on the back of a single press release with some accompanying churnalism, puff pieces, and trivial gossip. Grung0r (talk) 23:47, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Grung0r (talk) 23:47, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Slovenia-related deletion discussions. Grung0r (talk) 23:47, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:45, 22 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep, googling Slovenian newspapers shows quite a few news stories related to the party. And 1.7% in a national election is far from "tiny". --Soman (talk) 11:16, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment: I'm the original creator of the article. Please note that I've addressed Grung0r's concerns regarding the article on the article's talk page (which you may wish to look over), however, since we seemed to have arrived at an impasse in that discussion (in particular Grung0r's belief that Slovenia's news agency, the Slovenian Press Agency, is not a reliable source along with some other major Slovenian media organisations and potentially also all the media that rely on the reporting of the former for their own stories), I suggested to Grung0r that (s)he seeks input from other editors. Kind regards, -J Jay Hodec (talk) 17:51, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I would appreciate if you wouldn't attempt to summarize the beliefs and motivations you think I have. I stated the reasons I thought the page should be deleted in the nomination, and that reasoning needs no commentary from you, unless you have a material objection.  Grung0r (talk) 12:08, 24 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Not to belabour the point, but I feel I must respond. As per Guide_to_deletion: "The author of the article can make his/her case like everyone else. As discussed above, relevant facts and evidence are welcome from anyone [...]" I lodged my comment as I think you neglected your due diligence regarding the deletion proposal.


 * First of all, the notability of the article in its current state was disputed and being discussed on the talk page. Our central disagreement was whether media sources that do not give the full names of the authors are reliable sources (or media that relies on them). After I said that I don't see any point in continuing discussing such an assertion and recommended you seek input from other editors on this point, you nominated the article for deletion. In your deletion summary, I feel you neglected to mention/misrepresented the discussion on the talk page. I feel that it would have been proper of you to have sought 3rd opinions through other mechanisms regarding the reliability of used sources instead of nominating the article for deletion and just reiterating your belief as an undisputed fact without alluding to the matter of the dispute. Furthermore, you never asked me to provide alternative sources for the article, nor have you sought them yourself, apparently.


 * Additionally, I already responded to all your other objections that you reiterated in the deletion summary. You responded with "Can you summarize why you believe this political party to be notable(according to WP:ORG)? I don't see that sort of argument in your reply, just gainsaying of my individual points." I replied with: "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. [...]" From there on, the discussion hinged merely on the reliability of the sources. You never addressed my counter-arguments. You still reiterated them in your deletion summary.


 * In my comment, I merely pointed out that the deletion was a result of an ongoing dispute regarding the reliability of sources which was not obvious from your deletion summary. Furthermore, I don't feel I discussed your motivations in any way.


 * Kind regards, -J Jay Hodec (talk) 20:28, 24 July 2020 (UTC)


 * The deletion request is not the result of an ongoing dispute. It has NOTHING TO DO WITH YOU or our discussion. Nowhere in this wall of text did you give an argument as to why the reasons I gave for deleting the page are wrong, only why the reasons you imagined I requested to have deleted it were an affront to you. I gave my actual reasons when I nominated this page for deletion, and as you note, you are more than entitled so say why you think they are wrong, but please, leave me out of it. Grung0r (talk) 01:16, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

[...] 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. - me, 21 July

Ok. I will nominate the article for deletion. - Grung0r, 21 July, full and final reply

( Article is nominated for deletion on 21 July )

The deletion request is not the result of an ongoing dispute. It has NOTHING TO DO WITH YOU or our discussion. - Grung0r, 25 July


 * You - as well as other deliberants - may find my arguments against your objections listed in our discussion on Talk:Homeland_League. I however remain firm in my belief that other editors should deliberate on whether your assertion that media sources that do not list full author names in bylines (and those media that cite the former) are unreliable sources, since this, if true, would have implications far beyond the current article in question.


 * I apologise to other editors for us two going on a tangent but I felt the need to respond. Kind regards, -J Jay Hodec (talk) 02:43, 25 July 2020 (UTC)


 * You are confusing my politeness in allowing our conversation to come to a natural conclusion before I requested deletion with the actual set of events and information that led me to the conclusion taht the page should be deleted. They didn't happen at the same time. Or maybe you're just filibustering, hoping no one will read the misformatted wall of text you've left behind, however bereft of arguments it might be. Unless you come up with an actual objection to the reasons I stated the page should be deleted, let this stand as my "full and final reply" to you on this matter. Grung0r (talk) 03:22, 25 July 2020 (UTC)


 * The bottom line is that you did not do your due diligence, did not seek consensus, ignored most of my counter-arguments and never-the-less nominated the article for deletion by just reiterating the spurious reasons you initially advanced. Please, review Articles_for_deletion, Guide_to_deletion, and Template:Notability. As for your assertion that "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"?"; I don't know how to respond to such a preposterous allegation, so I'll just reiterate my original stance that other editors should adjudicate. If they agree with you, I can seek sources with bulky bylines that your heart so desires.


 * I'll end this discussion here and let others deliberate. Regards, -J Jay Hodec (talk) 03:52, 25 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep per above. BMB 722 (talk) 05:33, 25 July 2020 (UTC)  Striking sockpuppet !vote  ɴᴋᴏɴ21  ❯❯❯  talk  05:49, 25 July 2020 (UTC)


 * A sockpuppet of Jay Hodec? That seems important...Grung0r (talk) 05:59, 25 July 2020 (UTC)


 * @Grung0r: I had no part in this. I disavow any and all illegitimate votes. Anyway, why would I create obvious sockpuppet accounts? That'd be just plain stupid. -J Jay Hodec (talk) 06:36, 25 July 2020 (UTC)


 * A sock puppet that randomly felt the need to vote in your favor. Why do you think it did it? It didn't vote in any other afd's as far as I can tell.Grung0r (talk) 06:48, 25 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Actually, it managed to hit up 3 pages within 10 min before being blocked, as you can see here: Special:Contributions/BMB_722. 2 of these may have been just collateral damage, or maybe disruption was the goal.


 * By the way, you seem to be quite hostile towards me. I think I've been civil in my interactions with you and don't think I've done anything to warrant the animus/bad blood. I'd appreciate if you'd extend me the same courtesy.


 * Kind regards, -J Jay Hodec (talk) 07:03, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 07:01, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete Wikipedia is not a Gazetteer of political parties. This article only proves the party existed and, with such a tiny number of votes in one election, proves they have not achieved notable or important results. The Slovenian language article (https://sl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domovinska_liga) does not help much as it suggests that the party has not enough notable or important achievements beyond what the English language article displays. Usefulness is not a valid reason to retain. The above back-and-forth discussion is of no help or use to anyone. doktorb wordsdeeds 07:07, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Redirect: to 2019_European_Parliament_election_in_Slovenia. Doktorb said it all: 1.7% domestically in ANY election is a fringe result at best.   Ravenswing      01:40, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
 * They are already listed under that page, but as the "Patriotic League". Difference in translation, I suppose. Grung0r (talk) 05:25, 9 August 2020 (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.