Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Civic 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 no consensus. There is a clear absence of consensus for deletion at this time, and nothing in the discussion lends to thinking that relisting is likely to resolve in that direction. bd2412 T 03:57, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Civic Community[edit]

[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)

Lacks significant in-depth WP:RS to establish why it is notable, fails WP:GNG. Meeanaya (talk) 02:43, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: only given a passing mention; therefore, too thin coverage. Passing mentions are usually not counted, refer to statement in WP:GNG: "Martin Walker's statement, in a newspaper article about Bill Clinton,[1] that "In high school, he was part of a jazz band called Three Blind Mice" is plainly a trivial mention of that band." From AnUnnamedUser ^{(open talk page)} 02:46, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The real political force that postulates Carlos Mesa is CC, like the MUD in Venezuela or other electoral coalitions that have an article. The FRI is only a minority party whose legal status serves this purpose.--FelipeRev (talk) 03:03, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@FelipeRev: How does your argument relate to notability? From AnUnnamedUser ^{(open talk page)} 03:13, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@AnUnnamedUser: It is notable for the fact that it is the second force in an election of importance to the country where the events occur. In addition, the article has numerous sources of different media, so I do not consider that the argument that there are no reliable sources can be taken as valid. The article can be expanded, it is not necessary to delete it.--FelipeRev (talk) 16:51, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to make this a back-and-forth, but I would like to note to future participants to look at the sources and decide if they give only passing mentions and actual in-depth coverage. I sincerely say that I may have misjudged and been wrong. From AnUnnamedUser ^{(open talk page)} 18:39, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 08:29, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bolivia-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 08:29, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is useful to be able to click on the party's name and know what kind of party it is, if you are looking up the Bolivian general election. The information in this article seems too long to include inside the general election article itself. Also, the article has five references from three different websites. 2A00:23C7:8592:D500:5553:C40E:9AF0:3698 (talk) 08:38, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This argument is fallacious. "Usefulness" of information does not impact notability. Preserving all "useful" information is not necessary. Mere references may just be passing mentions. From AnUnnamedUser ^{(open talk page)} 18:37, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. After the , this is (about to become) the second biggest party in Bolivia in terms of representation. Seems pretty notable to me. -Xbony2 (talk) 00:17, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Can someone find sources in Spanish? I couldn't find English sources. From AnUnnamedUser ^{(open talk page)} 00:39, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The second biggest political force in Bolivia is clearly sufficiently notable for Wikipedia. AsmodeanUnderscore (talk) 23:08, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Uh... WP:ORGSIG, a policy, dictates that notability isn't inherent for organizations. From AnUnnamedUser ^{(open talk page)} 00:03, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - it's a somewhat recently created political entity but this political party/coalition is the main opponent to the governing party in Bolivia's possibly ongoing elections, and were elected on the first ballot to the second-most seats (70 elected members in total) in both houses of the Bolivian legislature with over 2.2 million votes to the winning party's 2.9 million. We don't seem to have a SNG specifically for political parties but this organization meets both of the criteria of WP:NGO easily. Suggesting that a nation's leading opposition political entity is not notable seems as though it must be politically motivated; I can't conceive any good-faith reason to suggest deletion here. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 23:51, 29 October 2019 (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.