Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Me and You - The Israeli People's Party

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. The consensus of this discussion was that the party failed WP:NORG and the GNG. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 16:43, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Me and You - The Israeli People's Party[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)

Non-notable political party; no independent references (all the media references are from well before the party was established and just refer to the political situation). Prod removed by article's creator, who has no other edits to Wikipedia than to this. Number 5 7 23:46, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The efforts to delete this article are unjustified and unsupported by evidince and by wikipedia rules. This is an artice about an established and registered party in israel, the likes of which can be found in the following: Or (political party), Pirate Party of Israel, Eretz Hadasha, ect. All those parties are not of yet elected and examples of wikipedia pages of unelected parties are to be found from any country where such parties exist. Wikipedia is not limited by space and there is no reason to deny people from getting such infromation. As for third party refrences - the registration documents of the party from governmental websites should be sufficient evidence for the party's existence, but to answer your request completely, I have also added an interview of the party, during a protest, by an israeli financial newspaper called globes, which is one of the most prominent of those, proving the party's existnece and activity. If you have any more complaints, please send me a messege on a talk page, and I will take measures to cast them aside. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zeisraeli (talk • contribs)
- (1) WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and (2) the article doesn't even mention the party by name. Number 57 23:54, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - - this is not about WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, it is about whether your acting on wikipedia policy, or on your own rational. Also, I should like to know who is making the vote on the article. As for the globes, on the clip there is quite a lengthy interview, in which the reporter shows the party clearly. --Zeisraeli (talk) 00:07, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - Zeisraeli has stated that they have a WP:COI with the subject. Number 5 7 00:33, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:44, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:44, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:44, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Registered party but did not participate in any past election nor hold any seats/posts. The sole independent coverage I found was this rather bonkers legal motion to electoral commission to disqualify most of the current MKs from running in the next elections - which was rejected out of hand on procedural grounds (the motion wasn't filed at the right time) - but had a snowball's chance also if filed correctly. In short - doesn't pass WP:NORG or WP:GNG. Sources in the article are mainly not independent or pre-date the party and cover the founder (and there aren't all that many of those). Icewhiz (talk) 10:11, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note that the hewiki entry was also created quite recently also by Zeisraeli (the English seems to be a translation of the Hebrew). I initiated a notability discussion on hewiki on this article (mileage there may vary - hewiki differs notability wise from enwiki - lots of SNGs (some tougher than enwiki, some more lenient)). Icewhiz (talk) 10:18, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

POV - Icewhiz, on claim of rather bonkers legal motion. I have two more third party interviews regarding the matter which I will shortly add, and from reading the wikipedia rulebook, such third party prespectives are point on which an article is decided as relevent or not. One interview is by a respected journalist, and the other by the former maneger of Kol Israel - one of the most prominnent redio channels in Israel. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zeisraeli (talk • contribs) 11:06, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I assert that "bonkers" is the appropriate term for the legal motion (which was rejected out of hand due to procedural reasons, but would've been rejected anyway even if filed in a timely fashion) - as a one word summary of the coverage in Maariv. The legal motion was not bonkers in the sense that it was bonkers enough to generate some press for this otherwise un-covered party (all be it - such coverage was mainly on the bonkers claim - but something is better than nothing). Icewhiz (talk) 11:42, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

a person who calles a legel document "Bonkers" without having studied it is indeed bonckers, and you are also practicing Independent research and vicious personal Point Of View attacks, which not based on said maariv article. I therefore raise a worry about your personal interests, and requests you reveal any COI, or refrain from expressing derogatory and heavily biased claims.--Zeisraeli (talk) 16:20, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The commission's response per Maariv is self explanatory. As for COI on my end - I do have a working knowledge of Israeli politics. The first I've heard of "Me and You - The Israeli People's Party" is in this AfD, I have no relation to this party nor to any of its (broadly construed) competing parties. I did initiate a hewiki notability discussion after this AfD begun - however that is not a COI.Icewhiz (talk) 16:42, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I have added point of view refrences.--Zeisraeli (talk) 11:37, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Halalit.TV's facebook page interview,[1] or People's broadcasting (slogan - "Become a Netizen Journalist" - though in this case the interviewer is a retired journalist ([2]) - do not establish notability - for starters since this isn't a RS, going through interviews being PRIMARY and not independent of the subject. Icewhiz (talk) 11:48, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per lacking independent RS to verify notability. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 14:51, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Stefka Bulgaria and talk are making an utter mess of engwiki policy. To begin with, a proper interview,such as these were , consists of an Interviewer and interviewee, the first states his position and the latter Cross-examins him, makes a conclusion and asks for clarifications - the first is a primery source, and the latter a secondery because he is also a independent commentator. As for the reliability of interviewers in question - The former Manager of Kol Israel is interviwing him on a news website, and is not retired. The women who is interviewing him is a commentator on prime israeli news channels, and therefore both have credibility. As it were, may I remind you both that wikipedia asks for only one third party source to make an subject notable, and I have provided three (another 5 minute on globes)--Zeisraeli (talk) 16:20, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete obvious WP:PROMO lacking notability per WP:GNG and WP:ORG. Jack N. Stock (talk) 22:14, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While I'm concerned about the WP:PROMO and WP:COI concerns, a registered political party would meet WP:NPOL in my eyes. Bkissin (talk) 17:54, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- @Bkissin: WP:NPOL is for politicians, not political parties. The relevant guideline here is WP:ORG, which effectively a rehash of the GNG. Anyone can register a political party – that being done is no indication of notability. Number 5 7 19:05, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

- General notability guideline ( for clarification):

Significant coverage : Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material: Israeli newspaper globes publishes coverage of a demonstration, a quarter of which is an interview of the party\ two complete interviews dedicated solely to the party.
Reliable: sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability... When taking information from opinion content, the identity of the author may help determine reliability. The opinions of specialists and recognized experts are more likely to be reliable and to reflect a significant viewpoint: All intervieweres are established journalists in israel (for example Tami Mulad on israel's national news channel:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MvMhVFTcZ7M), and therefore are to be considered reliable.
Sources: should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability...They rely on primary sources for their material, making analytic or evaluative claims about them: this is exactly what is done in the interviewes as stated before in the disscusion (they ask questions, interpet and comment on the answer). No where is it written that secondery sources can't be interviews, if they are not simply a press release.
Independent of the subject: excludes works produced by the article's subject or someone affiliated with it: The refrenced journalists are not known to be affiliated with the party.
Presumed: if the article violates what Wikipedia is not, particularly the rule that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information then it should not be a wikipedia article ( it should not be a Summary-only descriptions of works, Lyrics databases, Excessive listings of unexplained statistics, Exhaustive logs of software updates): it is not any of these, therefore, it is not an indiscriminate collection of information.

    therefore, the party is to be objectively considered notable - Q.E.D  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zeisraeli (talk • contribs) 18:14, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

- It is also worthwhile noting that, in Israel, party registration and election registration are separate - not all registered parties run. In this case this party has not been registered (yet) to run in any elections.Icewhiz (talk) 19:13, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  
  It is also worthwhile noting that, in Israel, parties only register when elections begin, and no party is registered (yet) to run in any elections.--2.55.33.225 (talk) 05:16, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Nom. I note that no notable persons are in this party (a new party formed by major public figures might be notable.) Coverage appears NOT to be in major media. And No one in this endless discussion disputes the fact that this new political party had not gotten any candidates elected.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:46, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note - the hewiki entry (linked Talk) was deleted today following a notability discussion on the page there (no deletion vote, as there was a clear consensus (sole objector was the creator) in the notability discussion (different procedure over there - in hewiki one tags notability, discusses on the talk page, and there is a vote only if there is disagreement)).Icewhiz (talk) 12:50, 23 December 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.