Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/100% Citoyens (Mauritius)

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 delete. As the closer of this discussion, my job is not just to count heads but to examine the quality f the arguments and their basis in Wikipedia policy. In doing that it seems clear the delete arguments are significantly stronger than the keep arguments. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:54, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

100% Citoyens (Mauritius)

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Political propaganda, advertising The Banner talk 05:21, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. The Banner talk 05:21, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mauritius-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 05:38, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. An article about a political party is not necessarily political propaganda or advertising. There are references from multiple reliable sources. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 05:49, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:31, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's not really promotional, but most of the coverage is from when they announced the party, and the remaining article isn't really significant coverage. No problem with restoring if they pick up a seat in an election. SportingFlyer T·C 07:47, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, given our very limited coverage of Mauritius the coverage is sufficient to keep. Rathfelder (talk) 17:31, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Often parties without seats are often straight deleted, but as that point has been specifically addressed, it seems reasonable to relist this to decide whether circumstances warrant retention anyway
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 10:28, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Rathfelder. Mccapra (talk) 10:37, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, if POV then counter the bias. Hyperbolick (talk) 12:46, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Just wanted to note none of the keep !votes really dig into the quality of the sources - as a new political party, they've received a flurry of news when they announced and haven't received anything since (as I've noted, the only article not from that time period isn't significant coverage.) I can't find any source that would get this over WP:GNG/WP:NOTNEWS, and while I appreciate wanting to keep this because we don't have a lot on Mauritius, that doesn't mean we should keep an article that does not comply with our policies. SportingFlyer T·C 18:02, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Our policies need to be put in context. There are few sources of information about Mauritius. Rathfelder (talk) 08:58, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- So with fewer sources, political propaganda and advertising is allowed? The Banner talk 15:42, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I agree with both Eastmain and Rathfelder, Alex-h (talk) 08:20, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Most of the sourcing is complete garbage. The last source is independent and looks professionally done, but I don't think it is significant. It just notes that they exist and quotes the party leader's account of the party's formation. At least one other source looked reasonably well put together, but all the sources were parroting press releases to some degree or another. That said, I think The Banner and SportingFlyer have a point that there is not much to write about this party until we see what they do in an election. Countering our lack of coverage on Mauritius would fall under WP:RGW, which is more insulting to Mauritius than anything. Rockphed (talk) 14:33, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.