Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Independent Democratic Party of Russia (2nd nomination)


 * 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. Spartaz Humbug! 03:43, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Independent Democratic Party of Russia
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log )

Although there where perhaps attempts to create this party, it doesn't exist and won't be founded, which became clear already some month ago. The article can be deleted, thus. Alfredovic (talk) 18:42, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:04, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:04, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:04, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Comment. This newsletter from May 1st is the most recent information I could find on it (I didn't check Russian sources though). Could you comment how did it became clear that it won't be founded? Looking at the previous AfD there was a small consensus that the non-existence of the party wasn't an issue as long as it was worded properly, given the fair coverage it received when the announcement was made. Would it be any different if it was definitive that the party won't be formed? - frankieMR (talk) 00:51, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, the newest information about so-called NDPR (Independent Democrativ Party of Russia) is from march 2009, as I can see in the Russian sources. Ryzhkov which is mentioned is in a new party now (see my comment below). Lebedev still is in the party Fair Russia; and the website http://www.ndpr.alebedev.ru/home/ has never been updated since 2009. The presentation on the party project by Lebedev itself (the only thing one can find at the website) has been created on november 25th, 2008, and it was uploaded on march 10th, 2009. Since then - no members, no blog, no information, no attempt to register the party - not existant, for short. Therefore delete it. Alfredovic (talk) 14:01, 15 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep - Not every political party needs to survive to be historically noteworthy. When The Guardian is covering the Independent Democratic Party project LIKE THIS, you know there is an encyclopedia-worthy subject involved here, whether or not the party actually launched or not. I favor the lowest of all possible barriers for coverage of serious topics like this. This is what encyclopedias SHOULD be writing about... Keep and improve. Carrite (talk) 05:53, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
 * It has never existed, so you can't say that it didn't survive - there just was never such a party, and never had any members. Alfredovic (talk) 14:01, 15 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete - 1) There was never a concrete project of this party, only thoughts about it 2) Ryzhkov is now in a new party, the Party of Popular Freedom/Parnas 3) Gorbachev didn't found a new party, and 3) Lebedev is still a part of Fair Russia. There has been founded a real new party - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Party_of_Popular_Freedom_%28current%29 So strongly delete article, since we don't need an article of a non-existing phenomenon, which nothing concrete at all exists about. Alfredovic (talk) 13:53, 15 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment. It does seem as if the party was never founded; maybe we should merge the content into Gorbachev's article? — Nightstallion 14:08, 15 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep - Yes, the party never managed to become a registered party in Russia but due to its well-known backers I think the idea of creating this party is worthy of an article. And it did manage to create lots of media coverage. Närking (talk) 18:32, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, is an idea of creating a party really enough? Even it is an idea by Gorbachev .. not everything he stated in an interview should be worth an article. Alfredovic (talk) 22:02, 19 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep. The concern with the first AfD was with WP:CRYSTAL for a moment, but unless you are to consider the party a product it was clear that no speculation was being made and that the announcement to form the party was serious, so it was treated as such by the media. If it is somehow clear now that it won't happen then crystal is definitely not an issue, and it is only required to source that fact to seal the content. Notability was clearly established by consensus last time, and it is not temporary. I think the nom has a valid concern regarding that content is to meet significance, and on that I agree with Carrite's position. The subject is of a matter that the encyclopaedia actively seeks since that's it's purpose in the first place - frankieMR (talk) 00:07, 20 May 2011 (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.