Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/National Labour Party (Hungary)

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. Stifle (talk) 12:28, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

National Labour Party (Hungary)

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

Fails Wikipedia:Notability. The article was created by myself in September 2011. Since then the party could not run in any parliamentary elections, they had only some candidates during municipal elections in Győr. The party's homepage (now it is not avaliable was last edited in 2012 and the party itself was also disbanded by the Prosecutor's Office according to the the valid legislation as the party did not run in the last two national elections. The Hungarian-language article about the party was also deleted in April 2014. --Norden1990 (talk) 22:09, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I also would like to ask for deletion of two fair-use images, which illustrate the article: this and this. --Norden1990 (talk) 22:12, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No coverage in reliable sources AusLondonder (talk) 03:38, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:21, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:21, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:21, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 13:02, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article has several citations to sources, no evidence they're unreliable SuperCarnivore591 (talk) 18:30, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Article contains seven citations, let's see: 1, the party's program (dead-link, party's homapage is not avaliable); 2, homepage of the national court which registered the party in 2009 (dead-link) 3, a news about a "skinhead" protest, where, among others, this party also participated (dead-link); 4, a local news portal's report about the foundation of the party (dead-link); 5, a "neo-Nazi protest", where several movements etc. participated, National Labour Party mentioned marginally (dead-link); 6, a party statement (own homepage, dead-link); 7, a local news portal's article correction and retraction (dead-link). Technically, the article is unsourced and had formerly contained marginal reports from local newspapers or the party's statements. Since 2010, there were no any reports about the party. --Norden1990 (talk) 11:08, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 11:04, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. By even the article creator's testimony, the subject organization has done nothing notable nor, now that it is disbanded, will it ever do anything notable. NewYorkActuary (talk) 04:56, 11 September 2015 (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.