Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Partij voor Naastenliefde, Vrijheid en Diversiteit


 * 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. Kind of a sad commentary that a "political party" with three members gets this much attention, but it is what it is.-- Kubigula (talk) 04:11, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Partij voor Naastenliefde, Vrijheid en Diversiteit

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Good grief. Here we have a Dutch political "party" that: I don't know about the Netherlands, but here in USA I could 570 signatures for anything by standing in front of a Wal-Mart for a copuple of days. This may be a spoof party. Whether or no, it's still just three people and is not notable. Herostratus (talk) 19:45, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) consists of three oddballs (plus "a few other members who wanted to remain anonymous" i.e. nonexistent I assume);
 * 2) takes a few extreme bizarro positions (animal sex, public nudity etc.) which are or could be designed just to pull people's chains and get some free shock value;
 * 3) is unable to get even the 570 signatures needed to appear on the ballot.


 * Delete as unnotable. Thanks, SqueakBox 19:50, 26 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I would agree with Herostratus so far as he goes. It is an unregistered party with only three known members and for that reason is non-notable. However the group has been the subject of extensive press coverage, based on the number of references. How about merging it into List of political parties in the Netherlands? ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 19:52, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Sounds okay to me. Thanks, SqueakBox 19:55, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep, received extensive media coverage. The party likely failed to meet electoral requirements because far-right groups threatened to 'out' and harrass any potential signatories. --AnotherSolipsist (talk) 21:02, 26 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep. Notability is not measured in "signatures", but in coverage from independant sources, and this one got lots. Bikasuishin (talk) 21:06, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep Sure, it's a tiny one-off party, but it seems to have gotten a fair whack of coverage in reliable sources, and that's good enough for me. Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 22:27, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - per extensive media coverage. matt91486 (talk) 23:57, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep per AnotherSolipsist, the party has received extensive media coverage. (jarbarf) (talk) 20:28, 2 March 2008 (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.