Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Union of Chinese Nationalists (2nd nomination)


 * 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. -- Cirt (talk) 05:27, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Union of Chinese Nationalists
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log )

Notability of the topic is disputable: article claims that the subject is a "political party" formed via an online internet forum. Recreation of a previously deleted article, refer to earlier AfD. Google search gives no related hits apart from Wikipedia and self-published sites such as Facebook, Youtube, Stormfront.org, Groupsite, MeFeedia, etc. (Unrelated google hits include information on the (unrelated) Chinese Nationalists during WW2.) "Official website" is a one-page website with very little detail and a few gmail emails, and appears to be registered in Bellevue, Washington. The logo of the organization is uploaded onto Commons by a user claiming a license of "Public Domain, self created", suggesting the possibility of WP:COI, direct or indirect. --  李博杰   | —Talk contribs email 05:09, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 23:32, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 23:32, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 23:33, 15 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep - I support the lowest of all possible notability bars for political parties and their youth sections, regardless of size or ideology. This is the sort of material that NEEDS to be in an encyclopedia, not shunted aside due to sourcing deficiencies. Political parties should be treated exactly the way we treat insect species, villages, high schools, pro athletes, and so forth — if it exists, it should be in. Unfortunately, this remains a minority view and solid content continues to be annihilated for failure to comply with imperfect and ill-fitting guidelines of "notability." Unfortunately also, people find it much easier to get worked up over the potential loss of pages dedicated to TV plots, child actors, and professional athletes, than they do about tiny political parties. I'll keep saying my piece, we're really screwing up on this. IGNORE ALL RULES (use common sense) used to be a fundamental "pillar" of Wikipedia. Unthinking adherence to so-called "notability guidelines" is the new norm... Unfortunately. Carrite (talk) 04:35, 16 May 2011 (UTC) Last edit: Carrite (talk) 04:37, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep, group is notable in the sense of having provoked the government of the world's most populous country to pronounce itself about it. --Soman (talk) 17:38, 16 May 2011 (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.