Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/New Party (Serbia)


 * 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The result was Keep, withdrawn by nominator (NAC). No such user (talk) 09:10, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

New Party (Serbia)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Nothing other then a link to the official website-unless if someone is willing to make this article sometime who is familiar with this subject. Wgolf (talk) 18:25, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep Notable party led by a very big cheese in Serbian politics. The article is admittedly pretty rubbish but the answer is editing not deletion. Keresaspa (talk) 19:24, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
 * That is what I figured-but since I know nothing about Serbian politics I was not sure. Surprise nobody noticed this. Wgolf (talk) 19:33, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
 * It's not my specialist subject either to be honest but I'm sure somebody who knows more about this (and can read Serbo-Croat) could turn out a decent article on this party. Keresaspa (talk) 00:16, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:24, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:25, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:25, 21 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep. Keep, close the AFD, allow editors to develop Wikipedia.  Sure, tag whatever you wish.  But AFDs on notable topics seem not helpful to developing Wikipedia, they seem to throw a wrench into it, instead, IMHO. (Copy of what i just wrote about another organization AFD.) -- do  ncr  am  02:44, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I was not sure what to tag this with-since there was nothing when I tagged it other then a website-which I was thinking that it would be okay to put it then. So I change to keep.Wgolf (talk) 03:10, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Okay, thanks, then this AFD should be closed, as nominator changes to "Keep" and the only other comments are "Keep". Wgolf, i think this means that you should have found some other tag, maybe just expand or refimprove, rather than opening an AFD.  An AFD should be only where you have done work per wp:BEFORE and seriously believe the topic is not valid for a wikipedia article.  It should n't be merely a call for others to develop an article that needs work.  Cheers, -- do  ncr  am  12:37, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
 * To be fair to the nominator the article looked like this when it was nominated, having effectively no content. It's a working stub now though, albeit one that would certainly beneift from the expand tag. Keresaspa (talk) 15:28, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Yeah thanks, not that it will make a big difference, I think we all have had it where we have that one article we put a AFD on that isn't one. Ha ha. Wgolf (talk) 16:55, 21 April 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.