Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Libertas Austria

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 all to Libertas.eu, the main article, per WP:COPYWITHIN, WP:MAD. (non-admin closure) Pcap ping 10:57, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Libertas Austria[edit]

Notability? Libertas.eu is an Irish company (!) which failed to be recognized as a European party. Mainly a one-topic organization against the Lisbon treaty (that was finally signed last year), Libertas.eu initiated independent voting lists in several countries for the 2009 Europarl elections. However in many countries it failed to be accepted, in several countries it didn't even manage to come up with a list. These five are such candidates, which means these five articles are about nothing more than the ambitions of the company owner to come up with a voting list in these five countries.

I'm okay with merging a few facts with the main article, but if it doesn't happen I don't feel sorry, either. Delete.

PanchoS (talk) 22:18, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the lists of Europe-related and Politics-related deletion discussions. —PanchoS (talk) 22:18, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete merge some facts into main article, then delete - there's no reason to have articles on entities that failed to be created QEDquid (talk) 09:45, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Added the following article to this AfD:

Reason: Comparable situation of a non-existent party. Merged some facts into Liberal Party (Greece, modern) and Libertas.eu, ready for deletion. PanchoS (talk) 11:43, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note. If you have merged or plan to merge material from these article, then you must not delete the originating article. See Wikipedia:Merge and delete. "Merged ready for deletion" is not something we do for licensing reasons. Fences&Windows 01:29, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's why I have given the main author in the edit summary. The question, however, is: what about "smerging"? Suppose, I merge some 30% out, now what about the rest? Page blanking doen't seem to be inacceptable for me, that's what an AfD is. Or am I wrong? PanchoS (talk) 10:13, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Selective merge and a redirect (leaving the {{r from merge}} template) does not require AfD. It can be done after discussion on talk pages or WikiProjects, or just done boldly. Fences&Windows 01:49, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Added the following two articles to this AfD:

Reason: Comparable situation of a non-existent party. Merged some facts into Earth Party resp. to Peter Kopecký, Agrarian and Countryside Party, Richard Sulík, Freedom and Solidarity and in both cases to Libertas.eu
PanchoS (talk) 06:21, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly Disagree, deleting will let some very good accumulation of knowledge disappear. Each of these branches were notable and distinct and some may still be entities that still exist and the overall Libertas story is still notable and newsworthy. Historical material, sources and info will be hard to compile again I think. Well referenced and footnoted Catapla (talk) 19:37, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Detele, No noutability whatsoever. The Ogre (talk) 19:55, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 07:42, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - as per Catapla, but careful Merge would be OK Opbeith (talk) 00:00, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all - a single author is spamming Wikipedia with innumerable articles about a subject that deserves no more than one. This is a transparent attempt to use Wikipedia to exaggerate its importance, contrary to WP:SOAP and WP:WEIGHT. Each of these branches may have been "distinct", but there is no indication that they were independently notable. Information can be merged to the main article; the usual argument against delete-and-merge, that contribution history would be lost, does not apply here because all these are by the same author. JohnCD (talk) 11:04, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note by the nominator: I already merged the most important information from some of these articles to the main article. As the second 8-day-term reaches its end, I try to finish this by today, so the articles can be deleted without losing substantial information. I agree with JohnCD's argument that delete-and-merge works here, additionally I see no alternative to delete-and-merge and within 14 days nobody showed me an alternative to what can be done to these articles. PanchoS (talk) 11:30, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Finished this really onerous task. PanchoS (talk) 06:03, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- PanchoS credited User:Anameofmyveryown in edit summaries, see WP:Copying within Wikipedia#Proper attribution, List of authors. Most edits by others were categories, spelling, removals, or reverted; the most substantial changes were to Libertas Slovakia (diff) and were in content too detailed to merge. Flatscan (talk) 04:58, 26 February 2010 (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.