Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Base (political party)


 * 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 no consensus to delete, after much-extended time for discussion. It does not appear likely that further relisting will generate a clearer outcome. BD2412 T 21:45, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

The Base (political party)

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Very minor political party, has never participated on its own in an election or won seats on any level of government MatryoshkaNL (talk) 12:46, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. MatryoshkaNL (talk) 12:46, 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)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:47, 6 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep The party adds information to Wikipedia that may not be found elsewhere, and just because it is small doesn't mean it shouldn't have an article ;and just because it hasn't won many offices doesn't mean it isn't notable. The Vermont Progressive Party hasn't won many offices and you can view it here on Wikipedia. Dswitz10734 (talk) 19:00, 6 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. This political party has not been shown to have significance in any setting. The Vermont Progressive Party is irrelevant to this discussion. Geschichte (talk) 19:18, 6 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment / keep. I'd like to point out that the party has in fact participated on its own in the 2014 and 2018 municipal elections (in Amsterdam and Utrecht, which are the largest and fourth largest municipalities in terms of population). I agree with the points made by the article provides a collection of information that may not be found elsewhere, and the party's notability is not determined by the number of seats it has won. &#8213;  Ætoms  [talk] 21:10, 11 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete based on current article references. It is true that seats won do not determine notability. A party could get no seats whatsoever yet get reported on for whatever reason and become notable that way. The Pirate Party (Netherlands) comes to mind. (the Dutch article has more sources) The reverse while less common can also happen: a party may actually get seats but be so bland that nobody can be bothered to write about them, in which case the party wouldn't be notable despite having seats. Trying to interpret Notability (organizations and companies) I see the following references in the article:  (not independent),  (valid source),  (not significant) and . (not independent)
 * 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.
 * There is only one in the article references. My vote (and perhaps that of others) could change if more sources are added. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 11:33, 14 November 2020 (UTC)


 * you're right! I expanded the article and added more independent secondary sources. &#8213; Ætoms  [talk] 14:02, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Would appreciate a discussion on the sources added by User:Ætoms

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ‑Scottywong | [squeal] ||  01:51, 15 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Reviewing the new sources based on Notability (organizations and companies) (significant, independent, reliable, secondary):
 * no depth, insignificant
 * insignificant mention on a list
 * insignificant mention on a list
 * very little depth
 * not super deep, but I'll accept this one
 * mostly passing mention
 * "where are the lijsttrekkers that lost now" article, no information about the party
 * no information about the party
 * election results, no mention in the article text
 * So the only sources we have here that establish some notability are (the one we already had) which is good and  for which I'm probably being lenient to allow it. Does this satisfy being the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject? I guess two is technically multiple, but I don't feel overly convinced. The party has plenty of passing mentions (as most new political parties do), but those don't count towards notability according to Notability (organizations and companies). I don't feel like it's enough to change my vote. If there were one more proper in-depth article, I'd probably vote keep, but as it is.. Sorry. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 15:19, 15 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep Again, a political party isn't notable based on offices won. Plus, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is an essay, not a policy. It is an opinion that some editors agree with. I am aware that Wikipedia is not a database, however when people want information, they like to turn to Wikipedia. To keep content and valuable information on Wikipedia, we must keep this article. I suggest we find out how many page views per day it gets and go from there. --Dswitz10734 (talk) 12:20, 16 November 2020 (UTC)


 * The number of pageviews does not confer notability per WP:POPULARPAGE, significant coverage in reliable secondary sources does. - Tristan Surtel (talk) 12:33, 16 November 2020 (UTC)


 * @Tristan Surtel, the page you left in your comment is an essay, an opinion, not a guideline or policy. Dswitz10734 (talk) 13:40, 16 November 2020 (UTC)


 * I recently looked at Devin Stone/LegalEagle, a YouTube channel with 1.36M subscribers who also appeared on well known channels like Half as Interesting, Dr. Mike and Tom Scott. When you enter "legal eagle" on Google, one of the suggestions is "legal eagle wikipedia", so people are looking for the article already. And most are probably not looking for the airplane the article title redirects to now. I'm sure such an article would get views. But to my surprise, I couldn't quite find enough sources to establish notability. So alas, no article for now. Though where I expect Devin Stone/LegalEagle to become notable under current guidelines possibly fairly soon, I'm less sure about The Base. Page views don't establish notability. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 20:36, 17 November 2020 (UTC)


 * @Alexis Jazz, Wikipedia is made to help people. It's made to make information free to everyone. I understand that Wikipedia is not a database, but making reliable facts free to everyone is Wikipedia's mission. Perhaps Merging would be a better option than deleting. If someone who is reading this supports the idea of merging, please look for a page to merge with, or consider creating a Minor Political Parties in the Netherlands or the already existing List of political parties in the Netherlands.


 * Indeed I'd strongly discourage deletion of the article's content. Although I'm in favor of keeping it as a separate article, it could perhaps be merged into Universal basic income in the Netherlands should the consensus be to delete. &#8213; Ætoms  [talk] 14:48, 24 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep. Passes the WP:GNG per items 2, 8 and 9 above. gidonb (talk) 06:05, 17 November 2020 (UTC)


 * I just added to the article, which – in my opinion – also qualifies as a valid secondary source. &#8213;  Ætoms  [talk] 14:21, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * OOG is the local broadcaster for Groningen. (the city, not the province) WP:ORGCRIT requires attention from international, national, or at least regional media. To what degree local media can help to establish notability is unclear, the policy seemingly suggests that local media could be used if at least one other source is regional or wider. But my interpretation of the policy may be flawed. Another issue is that I can't find OOG's editorial policy. (required by WP:RS) They most likely have one ("OOG staat voor haar journalistieke uitgangspunten" hints at this), perhaps it is also published somewhere, but I can't find it. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 16:48, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth, I think I would swing to neutral if OOG turns out to have published their editorial policy. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 07:33, 25 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment: Here is the link for pageviews:  Dswitz10734 (talk) 16:16, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep Based on the improvements/additions made since AfD nomination alone, I would like to keep. I know this is not a scientific reason, but several hundred voters made the effort to support this party - I'd prefer to be able to look them up with even the rudimentary information provided in the article.--Concertmusic (talk) 22:31, 24 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.