Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Italian Union Movement


 * 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. Valid arguments either way here, but there is a majority in favour of keeping, and we've already been here for over 4 weeks. Michig (talk) 08:54, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Italian Union Movement

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Obscure local party which never cuncurred in any national election, just in 2013 Rome municipal election in which it took 0,16% votes. Fails WP:GNG and WP:ORG. First source is a press release in a website owned by the founder of the party, the second source is purely routine (a list of candidates in a municipal election). Cavarrone 07:07, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:36, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:36, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:36, 4 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 02:18, 11 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep - THIS from www.romatoday.it/ indicates that the party is running a full slate in 2013 Rome City elections. Coverage of political parties, their leaders, and their youth sections is the sort of material that should be in a comprehensive encyclopedia. I suggest that Movimento Unione Italiano would be a better name for the piece rather than the English translation, by the way. HERE is another listing of the Movimento Unione Italiano slate. This is not a "party" created by three guys in a bar on a slow Thursday, this is a real political entity in the largest city in Italy. Carrite (talk) 16:42, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, the party run in 2013 Rome municipal election and according to final results it obtained 0,16% of votes without electing noone. 48 candidates, 2000 votes: about 40 votes per candidate... In this election there were more than 50 local parties without any national weight, do you want create articles about Uniti X il centro storico, Roma Risorge, Lega Italica and every 0,x% local party which run in a municipal election without obnaining any attention by the press (your "sources" are just listings of candidates, pure routine) nor results of any weight? Cavarrone 18:09, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Umm, not to be rude, but "48 candidates, 2000 votes: about 4 votes per candidate" is not possible. Carrite (talk) 21:00, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Oooops... fixed! Cavarrone 22:32, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
 * In answer to your question: yes. Carrite (talk) 21:04, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Ok, but based on which policy/guideline? With respect, your argument still reads like WP:ITSNOTABLE. Are your above linked listings of candidates (in websites which host the same listings for all the running parties) something minimally close to the significant indepht coverage which is required by our guidelines? Are you able to provide any independent and significant coverage about this party, the story, the leaders, the youth section (if existing), what they did in these years, what they are doing now, what they will do? What about WP:NOTDIRECTORY? How we can write an independent article about a political entity in the blatant absence of independent and significant secondary sources? Maybe I am missing something, but if you are right it would mean that we have no notability bar for political parties and that barely existing is sufficient for having an article on an encyclopedia. Cavarrone 22:32, 12 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep, quick google search turns up several mentions of the party, and 0.61% in a national capital is by no means that bad for a new party. I think, comparing Articles for deletion/Egyptian Nazi Party, the qualitative difference lies in between A): a serious party, presenting numerous candidates, holds press conferences, has an office, conducts a regular election campaign, but isn't very successful (keep) and B): Two guys and a Facebook account. (delete). --Soman (talk) 09:43, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Outside of other stuff, do you have a single significant, independent and reliable secondary source which relies to the activity of this party, which covers a press conference of one of their leaders, or which expresses the concept that this is "a serious party"? Getting 2000 votes in a city of over 2,7 millions people (0.16%, not 0,61%) isn't by no means an impressive result, especially in a municipal election which had the partecipation of about 50 other obscure, "one-shot" local parties (all af them "presenting numerous candidates", "having an office" and "conducting a regular election campaign"). Cavarrone 04:33, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I think this image illustrates well that it is a party that had a seemingly well-financed election campaign, https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=634561219904788&set=a.169658599728388.45078.169643403063241&type=1&relevant_count=1 . That won't do as a source in article mainspace, but it does give a hint on the character of the party. Combined with having run a full slate in the election, I'd say that provides for the argument that this is a serious party (as opposed to a frivolous basement project). Other coverage http://www.lenovae.it/contro-limmobilismo-il-movimento-unione-italiano-decide-di-agire-ecco-come/, http://www.eur.roma.it/index.php?id=27&news=9850 , http://www.asca.it/news-Roma_comunali__Alemanno_presenta_il_Movimento_Unione_Italiano-1278239.html , http://www.ventonuovo.eu/?p=15704 , http://www.iltempo.it/politica/campidoglio/2013/05/19/bandecchi-fa-un-partito-e-sceglie-il-centrodestra-1.1139914 --Soman (talk) 02:32, 19 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 02:07, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

 
 * Keep Seems to be lots of references to this party, seems to be a legitimate concern. Most sources in Italian so hard to tell.
 * Delete. There is only one mention of this party on the site for ANSA, the Italian press agency, and that is a routine summary of the 2013 municipal election result. I used to be an election judge, and I can tell you somebody will vote for anything. There are people in every precinct in the U.S. who vote for Mickey Mouse and Donald Duck. We don't even bother to count those kind of votes. So, please everyone, stop making them. KlingonHeaven (talk) 07:53, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 05:45, 27 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep Sufficient references. EWe should be relatively inclusive for political parties--it is reasonable that any party on the ballot in a major election will be a subject that someone might reasonably expect to find in an encyclopedia DGG ( talk ) 04:14, 3 November 2013 (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.