Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christian Electoral Community

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. No evidence was brought forth which supports notability for this Austrian political party. Sources don't have to be in English, but consensus is delete as no substantial sources in any language have been presented. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 14:48, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Christian Electoral Community

[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)

Has no visible verifiable references from reliable sources. Contested PROD. — Jeff G. ツ 12:55, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:19, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:19, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Multiple sources available from the German language version of the article- similarly, there is news coverage in German-language sources. There are also references to the CWG in a couple books on Google Books and a mention in at least one academic paper. In need of work, but could be updated and verified by an editor with appropriate language skills. --Spasemunki (talk) 03:07, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The paper I think you mean is about a Bavarian party that happens to share the name but is otherwise unrelated. Same goes for any non-trivial mentions I see on Google Books. Damvile (talk) 03:49, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I see coverage in multiple independent secondary sources but I'm unable to find any significant coverage, so I think the CWG fails the general notability guideline. For example, there are at least three reputable Austrian broadsheets that have mentioned the CWG at some point... but only in passing, as one of several failed also-rans in a table of election results. Damvile (talk) 03:47, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:16, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Innisfree987 (talk) 06:02, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Only see passing mention as such [1], nothing like significant coverage. Excelse (talk) 16:57, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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.