Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reformists for Europe

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 Democrats of the Left. This article is unsourced so it Merger didn't seem like a feasible option. Still, some reader might use this name as a search term and it's good to point them to an article where this group is mentioned. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:35, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reformists for Europe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

Very small and unknown political group; from the page, written in four lines and devoid of sources, no encyclopedic relevance can be deduced. It could be at most integrated into the "Factions" section of the "Democrats of the Left" page. Scia Della Cometa (talk) 13:58, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, and Italy. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:03, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Wikipedia is great especially when it gathers information on little-known subjects. This article could be easily merged to a larger one, but, for the sake of readers, it is better to have it as a stand-alone one. Indeed, that makes it easier to follow its political path. The Reformists for Europe was a political party and later a faction within the Democrats of the Left, it was mentioned and linked in the latter's website, as the party gave big importance to organised factions (a rupture from the Italian Communist Party's democratic centralism). This, like all of them, deserve an article of its own. It it is not possible to keep it as I would like, an alternative (worse) solution would be to merge it either with Democratic Union (Italy) or Democrats of the Left, in order to preserve the article's history, at least. --Checco (talk) 06:20, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia also provides for topics to have significant coverage in sources, otherwise they don't meet the principles of general notability. In this case a merge with Democrats of the Left page would make sense (it was one of its internal factions), a standalone article would not.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 08:52, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Might be completely made-up from what I can gather. No sources are given at all. It is not even clear what it is exactly, since it is not defined as a party but as a "group". Yakme (talk) 09:03, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - The article doesn't cite any source, so I agree with Yakme (the article might be completely made up). From what I can find online, the article's subject is just a faction internal to the Democrats of the Left party, not a party. I don't think internal factions deserve a standalone article (unless they are really notable, i.e. they are the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject). At most, the subject can be merged with Democrats of the Left, but only if properly sourced. P1221 (talk) 11:41, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. It is clearly not easy to find source on a minor political grouping disbanded 15 years ago and I have no chance of going to the library and looking for newspapers from the 1990s. However, there is no doubt that it existed,[1][2] originally as a splinter group from Democratic Union and later as a faction of the Democrats of the Left—see list from the party's old website. If a stand-alone article is not viable, at least please merge it with Democrats of the Left. --Checco (talk) 14:15, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  The fact that something exists doesn't mean that it deserves an article in Wikipedia. P1221 (talk) 14:51, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:41, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect. The way I see it, there's not much content at the page now to merge and not much opportunity to expand it. Might be plausible they meet ORG based on offline sources, I don't really know, but it doesn't really matter for now since we'd not be losing any sourced content with a straight-up redirect. Don't see any issues with the content that needs actual deletion, it's just unsourced. Alpha3031 (t • c) 11:26, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:16, 7 August 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.