Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/New Youth of Macau

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 redirect to 2005 Macanese legislative election#Results. Ajpolino (talk) 04:18, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

New Youth of Macau

[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)

Unreferenced since 2006, never won any seats that I can see, no WP:SIGCOV that I can see. Searching the Chinese name brings up a lot of false positive hits. Fails WP:GNG. FOARP (talk) 14:30, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:41, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:41, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:41, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 2005 Macanese legislative election#Results (with the history preserved under the redirect), where the New Youth of Macau (Chinese: 澳門新青年; Portuguese: Nova Juventude de Macau) is mentioned, per Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion. This 2005 Macanese legislative election document confirms that the New Youth of Macau received 263 votes, which is 2.02% of the vote total, in that election. I did not find evidence that the New Youth of Macau participated in other elections. If they did, an alternative redirect target is List of political parties in Macau which could discuss all the elections the group participated in.
Cunard (talk) 09:09, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 18:12, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose redirect as nom - "New youth of Macau" is not a likely search term, and anyone searching it is just as likely to be looking for stories about modern-day Macanese young people than this party that stood for election once, got very few votes, and disappeared without making any demonstrable impact. Edit history is always preserved and if sources can be found then the article can be refunded or recreated using those sources, but in this case none of the edits would actually be useful to a future editor who has found such sources. Accept that a redirect is still better than leaving up this completely unreferenced article though. FOARP (talk) 10:36, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I support a redirect per Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion because besides disambiguation pages, "New Youth of Macau" is mentioned in only 2005 Macanese legislative election#Results and List of political parties in Macau. The mention in 2005 Macanese legislative election#Results has more details: how the political party performed in that legislative election and what its Chinese and Portuguese names are. This makes the election page the best place for this title to point to. I did a Google Search for "New Youth of Macau" and did not find the term used outside of the context of this political party. The edit history is useful because it contains information about the political party which can be helpful for searching for sources. Once the history is deleted, a non-admin editor needs to ask an admin to undelete it to see the contents. I would prefer to retain the history so that there is no friction to obtaining the article contents. Cunard (talk) 01:14, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SpinningSpark 17:37, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per Cunard. I don't think that maintaining the article history is particularly important as it seems like the party is not notable and the current article is not in a state such that it would not able to be restarted if the party becomes notable later on, but it does seem like a good ATD and a way for people to learn about the party without them having their own article. TartarTorte 20:25, 19 January 2022 (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.