Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 10:48, 15 January 2015

Fag Army

Fag Army (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Donbass Association (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

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

I am posting this AfD on behalf of IP 83.254.148.228 (talk · contribs) whose reason is:

An editor suggested that I ask that these articles be deleted. They both concern Swedish facebook groups that were reported in Swedish national newspapers that discussed exactly one illegal act, (a) respectively hitting a cabinet minister in the face with a pie and (b) putting up posters on buildings in Malmö supporting Donbass insurgents and attacking Kiev's government in the city of Malmö.

(a) Fag Army's pie-thrower was named in the media. Please note that the Swedish article was deleted, following a discussion on the article talk page.

(b) Email from the Donbass Association Malmö (misnamed) was reported in an unreliable source; this email states that the facebook group was founded by four 20-30 year olds who fear having their names revealed. I can imagine that one or more may not yet be an adult.

I have not investigated these articles and express no opinion. JohnCD (talk) 18:53, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. JohnCD (talk) 18:59, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

• Weak keep - As far as I can tell, the organization is notable because of the pie in the face incident, for which it received coverage in several sources. Thus it would seem to meet WP:ORGDEPTH, which states "If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources should be cited to establish notability." On the other hand, the coverage could be considered incidental.- MrX 19:06, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
• Comment. Won't get involved in this. I should also add though that I have yet to update the article following the pie-thrower's conviction. Stamboliyski (talk) 19:09, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

@Stamboliyski: It's considered appropriate for the article creator to get involved in the AfD discussion. If you know of more recent sources, that would helpful.- MrX 19:24, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Hm, I thought it was the opposite. This article by Sveriges Radio features a news report about the conviction of the assailant, a photo of him, an interview with him in which he explains the motives of his group, and a mention of him as a LGBT activist. Stamboliyski (talk) 19:36, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

• Comment: the Swedish discussion is at sv:Diskussion:Fag Army. There does not appear to have been any Swedish article for "Donbassföreningen" or "Donbassföreningen Malmö". JohnCD (talk) 19:17, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
• Keep: there's just enough coverage to pass GNG. Vrac (talk) 00:33, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
• Keep - per GNG.--BabbaQ (talk) 10:52, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

• Maybe I wasn't clear enough or maybe I misread the organizational notability guidelines ("GNG"?). The guidelines warn that illegal events that make an organizational newsworthy for only one event do not establish notability, particularly if coverage of the event mentions the organization only in passing. Would you explain why concerns about illegal events or about one-event coverage do not apply here?

• Did anybody bother checking the references with Google translate? You did notice that the only reliable sources for Donbass Association Malmö are signed opinion-pieces discussing the postering (one only in passing in a wider discussion of Russian propaganda) and mentioning the organization only in passing. There are a few other nonreliable sources used, which are the basis for most of the article.
• A side note, particularly for special editors. A review of the page protection is in order, particularly in terms of judging who is summarily reverting all changes and who is discussing issues on the talk page (versus telling me to "fuck off" and accusing me of "vandalism").
• 83.254.148.228 (talk) 15:46, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

• Comment: these two unrelated organizations shouldn't be combined into a single AFD. Vrac (talk) 23:16, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

• I agree, can't see any reason why they should be treated as one. Tomas e (talk) 11:08, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:34, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:35, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

• DeleteMerge Fag Army selectively to LGBT rights in Sweden (or possibly another similar target) (haven't looked at the other and agree they should not be tied together) - This is a pretty standard delete. Only news coverage for only one event only from the time around the event. WP:CORPDEPTH is inapplicable: There is a possibility that an organization that is generally not notable will have a number of references if they have engaged in illegal acts, or it is alleged that they have engaged in illegal acts. Sources which primarily discuss allegations of unlawfulness shall not be considered when assessing an organization's notability per this guideline. However, keep in mind that the organization may still be notable under separate guidelines (e.g., WP:CRIME). ...Going then to WP:CRIME (and this same text applies to WP:EVENT: An event is presumed to be notable if it receives significant, non-routine coverage that persists over a period of time. Coverage should be in multiple reliable sources with national or global scope. (i.e. WP:NTEMP). --— Rhododendrites \\ 14:14, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

• @Babbaq and Vrac: - GNG would require that coverage be about the organization versus about the event -- and if primarily notable for an event, it requires the coverage be sustaining beyond contemporaneous news reports. Aside from an update of the conviction, what evidence of sustaining coverage or sources that are about the organization aside from this one event? --— Rhododendrites \\ 14:18, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

• Keep Since I've been asked to contribute, I will do so. I don't really have a strong opinion in either way, but it is my personal view that both articles fit the notability criterion within the context of Swedish national politics. Stamboliyski (talk) 12:46, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

  Could you explain which part of the notability policy you mean? I did not see a special guideline for "Swedish national politics" or your feelings. Thanks! 83.254.148.228 (talk) 15:19, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

  Your sarcasm doesn't fit the guidelines either, buddy. I say personal opinion because I can't claim to represent a 100% objective viewpoint. It is my opinion that both articles fit GNG. Stamboliyski (talk) 15:24, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

  Reread my non-sarcastic but direct statement. Other editors have explained that GNG specifically excludes organizations whose notability is based on one illegal event. (Putting posters on private and public property outside of public-posting zones is illegal in Sweden, obviously.) Why does this criminality exclusion not apply here? What part of notability/GNG are you citing? Also, you have not shown that there is any ongoing coverage, apart from the one night of postering. 83.254.148.228 (talk) 15:52, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

  Why are you so aggressive? Why are you so obsessive? Why do you assume I have some type logic behind my opinion, or any desire to have such logic? I don't particularly care about this issue, but find it distressing that you're go to such lengths on it. Stamboliyski (talk) 16:03, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

  (edit conflict) Crime is not excluded from the GNG. You're thinking of WP:CORPDEPTH. But the GNG does require sustained coverage over a period of time to show that the notability isn't temporary. Thus routine news coverage for a single event, criminal or not, is typically not sufficient to pass GNG. It's possible, however, that it could be added to another article. LGBT rights in Sweden seems a likely target, in fact, and I've changed my !vote to merge on that basis. --— Rhododendrites \\ 16:08, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

  Thanks for another clarification. I agree that a merge for Fag Army is preferable to a self-standing article. However, in practice, a merge may function as a delete, since this event is rather trivial and GLBT rights in Sweden is a rich topic. But the decision to kill a distraction about Fag Army can be left to the editors of the gay rights in Sweden article. I would suggest merging it rather in the biography of the pieéd politician or perhaps in a section about the Swedish Christian Democratic Party about controversies, especially gender issues. is a 17:25, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

• DeleteMerge Fag Army to LGBT rights in Sweden- Govindaharihari (talk) 21:29, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
• Regarding Donbass Association: @EriFr: argued for deletion on the article talkpage. is a 21:46, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

  Is this even an organization? As far as I can see, the Swedish Donbass Association is mostly a minor Facebook page with just a handful of active followers. Of all that is written in the article, almost nothing substantial is written about the organization itself. Much is written about the alleged organization's purpose and views, but very little is written that explains who it is that has this purpose and holds these opinions. Unless additional information provides more information about the organization, I suggest that this article is deleted. EriFr (talk) 01:56, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

All reports about the alleged organization occurs during the period 10 to 14 December 2014 and relate to one single event, a night of postering. I do not believe that the alleged organization can be considered noteable at this level. EriFr (talk) 07:29, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

• Redirect/selective merge to Göran Hägglund or some other appropriate page. EriFr is right, as far as I can tell: this article discusses the supposed organisation behind a one-off action, so WP:NEVENT applies. Revert when it turns out this actually is an organisation. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 23:36, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
• Update on 'Donbass Association Malmö: The name has been corrected, following talk page consensus, based on reliable sources---this correction was delayed especially by the improper page protection. The article focuses on the postering incident and its slogans. A section discusses its goals and membership, using the sources already used---most of which are unreliable. Most of that section could be removed. The infobox has been updated. An introductory paragraph now summarizes the article. An unsourced paragraph was moved to the talk page, along with a plea for reliable sources. Please review the article history and talk page discussions and provide feed back to the editor who protected the page and to the editor who has reverted all changes repeatedly. is a 10:48, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

• AfD debates (Society topics)
• AfD debates