Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NLBeter


 * 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. Consensus that this party meets WP:NORG. (non-admin closure) (t &#183; c)  buidhe  23:37, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

NLBeter

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Very minor political party, has never participated in an election or won seats on any level of government MatryoshkaNL (talk) 12:50, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. MatryoshkaNL (talk) 12:50, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone  13:13, 6 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep. The party is a serious contender for the 2021 Dutch general election and has received significant coverage from major (national) newspapers and media: De Telegraaf, de Volkskrant , Noordhollands Dagblad , Trouw , Op1 to name a few. The article definitely needs improvement, but in my opinion, it meets the notability criterion for inclusion in Wikipedia. &#8213; Ætoms  [talk] 13:29, 6 November 2020 (UTC)


 * More independent sources that have written about the party: NOS, EenVandaag , HP/De Tijd , Elsevier Magazine &#8213; Ætoms  [talk] 23:23, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
 * some have issues:
 * De Telegraaf opinion piece from the lijsttrekker, not independent
 * de Volkskrant good
 * Noordhollands Dagblad Name of the author not mentioned there, but I found Mirjam Kaijer at the source. Seems alright, but the article is not primarily about the political party, though part of it is. Not sure if this counts as "significant".
 * Trouw opinion piece from the lijsttrekker, not independent
 * NOS good
 * EenVandaag good (though EenVandaag and NOS are both part of the NPO, they should be independent though, the Dutch system is a bit complicated, I'd prefer not basing an article solely on NPO-sources)
 * HP/De Tijd good
 * Elsevier Magazine While more than a mere mention, this doesn't go very deep. Not sure if this counts as "significant".
 * I haven't checked Op1. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 12:43, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Some more sources: Reformatorisch Dagblad (thou shalt not read the news on Sunday thou heathen!), Leeuwarder Courant, a very short article from LEF magazine and an interview mostly about the lijsttrekker from Parool. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 14:07, 14 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete. The sourcing by Ætoms is very solid (basically all major Dutch news outlets), but I am still leaning towards delete. Usually around 30/40 new parties participate in the Dutch general election and usually one or two of them manage to get a seat in parliament. The other parties are then usually dissolved shortly after and forgotten. Major news outlets will always write an article about these newcomer parties. However, they are unlikely to get sustained coverage after this one article. This party has never won any seats and has currently zero seats in all major polls (for example). It is not impossible for the party to get a seat or play a role in Dutch politics, but for now it seems at least WP:TOOSOON. - Tristan Surtel (talk) 09:53, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Is there a basis in policy for this? Notability is generally determined by media coverage. If the national media massively reports on a cat that's stuck in a tree, that's notable. I'm not remotely interested in the Kardashians and never had a pet rock, I may think it's bullshit or a fad, but those things are notable. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 12:43, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
 * It is a recent political party, so these news articles saying "hey, here's a new political party" do not seem to make it pass WP:SUSTAINED. - Tristan Surtel (talk) 13:09, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
 * WP:NTEMP on the same page says "Notability is not temporary; once a topic has been the subject of "significant coverage" in accordance with the general notability guideline, it does not need to have ongoing coverage."
 * Several of these articles go significantly deeper than "hey, here's a new political party". And as it says in the section you linked: "sustained coverage is an indicator of notability", so sustained coverage is an indicator, no requirement. I suppose you could use the WP:NOTNEWSPAPER argument for the Elsevier Magazine reference which doesn't have much depth, but several others do. "A topic is "notable" in Wikipedia terms only if the outside world has already "taken notice of it"." (from the section you linked) and I think that's the case here. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 14:07, 14 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep Notability (organizations and companies): A company, corporation, organization, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject.
 * This requirement appears to have been met. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 12:43, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:29, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep. I agree that WP:ORGCRIT has been met. gidonb (talk) 13:32, 20 November 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.