Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Venetian National 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   keep. ( X! ·  talk )  · @277  · 05:39, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Venetian National Party

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

No notability, no representation. Brand new splinter party. Only regional, very limited importance. Candidating at 2 provincial elections, with 0.2% votes only (see article in it.wiki - remark that Italy has more than 100 provinces). The english name of the party seems to be completely invented. AfD in it.wiki with a great majority for deletion (= +1) Invitamia (talk) 21:41, 30 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete per nominator. Thryduulf (talk) 22:00, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions.  —Thryduulf (talk) 22:00, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions.  —Thryduulf (talk) 22:00, 30 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. As it.Wiki is almost an unreliable source, I don't see how a deletion there can be a reason for deleting an article in en.Wiki. The party is notable, although small and young. I think that Wikipedia should cover all these small parties. --Checco (talk) 15:26, 30 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. I am concerned about the reasons mentioned to delete this article. The party is small simply because is new and presented its lists for the first time at local admiministrative elections, but already announced for next year to be present also at regional general elections. Regarding then the English name of the party it is merely the literary translation from Venetian and Italian, so it is not correct to say it is invented. Final consideration, but the most important in my opinion: this new political movement expresses new ideas emerging from the Venetian society and it is remarkable and important not to neglect this, deletion may appear as a sort of censorship and is not according with respect of freedoom of expression. --Tbusato (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 06:50, 1 July 2009 (UTC).
 * Keep. It contested elections, that's notable enough. — Nightstallion 08:23, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. The party is small and young but is effective. --Xorxi (talk)
 * Keep. As it.Wiki is a really unreliable source, as usual for italian media system, I don't see how a deletion there can be a reason for deleting an article in en.Wiki. The party is notable, although small and young. I think that Wikipedia should cover all these small parties.--Gbusato (talk) 15:40, 1 July 2009 (UTC) — Gbusato (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Keep. For the freedom of information keep it alive. --Stefand (Stefand)  —Preceding undated comment added 18:50, 1 July 2009 (UTC).
 * Keep. Yes, for the freedom of information keep it alive.--Gianegiane (talk) 20:28, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. The keep arguments above seem to be very lacking in reliable souces, and the only two hits from Google News are forum posts. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:47, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. here are other reliable souces for keep arguments above:["la tribuna" di Treviso, 18/05/2008], ["Il Treviso, 18/05/2008], ["il mattino" di Padova, 20/07/2008], [Il Treviso, 15/05/2009], ["il mattino" di Padova, 03/06/2009]--Gianegiane (talk) 09:11, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Keep in mind that Italy is already threatening to obscure youtube and facebook within the Italian territory unless they regulate their contents according to government dictated standards. We cannot risk that the same happens to en.Wiki. We must follow it.Wiki's example and completely erase this entry. The Italian Armed Forces (Carabinieri) have clearly shown they will not tolerate dissent that questions Italy's territorial unity (see newspaper articles). Please delete as soon as possible: people do not need to know about this.Bolivendarsen (talk) 21:52, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
 * These for sure seem to me to be good reasons for keeping the article! --Checco (talk) 17:04, 6 July 2009 (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.