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 keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:43, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Europe of Sovereign Nations (party) (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)

The relevant article already exists Europe of Sovereign Nations Group. The existence of a second article is abusive, all the more so if it offers the reader nothing different or new in terms of information. Pallikari ap' ta Sfakia 18:35, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Europe. Shellwood (talk) 18:41, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose legally distinct entities: see ECR party & group; EPP party & group Braganza (talk) 18:46, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What is the essential difference between the two? Pallikari ap' ta Sfakia 19:21, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

one is a european party, the other is a group

FvD is member of the party but not the group Braganza (talk) 19:57, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just like at the national level, European parties are extra-parliamentary entities, while political groups are entities that operate only within the confines of the (European) Parliament. Membership is different, leadership is different, rules are different, roles are different, names and logos are (often) different, etc. Julius Schwarz (talk) 21:00, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Indeed, seems like a clear case of confusing European political party and political group of the European Parliament. Should have read the disambiguation page Europe of Sovereign Nations. Julius Schwarz (talk) 18:50, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:57, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, it is a separate entity and has one different member.--Jay942942 (talk) 13:49, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, a party and a European parliamentary group are different, there is also seperate articles for the ECR group and the ECR party, I can understand the arguments to delete this page since the ESN is small but we should be consitent on it --LuanLoud (talk) 17:31, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Pallikari ap' ta Sfakia, I'm curious about your deletion nomination. How can the presence of a related article on Wikipedia be considered "abusive"? Abusive to who? It's just after looking at thousands of AFD discussions, it's an argument I've never come across before and I'd like to know what you meant. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:39, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I picked the wrong word. I meant excessive (too much)- two articles on the same subject. Sorry if I confused you. Pallikari ap' ta Sfakia 17:26, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  It is not the same subject though. ElTres (talk) 05:19, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Do those !voting "oppose" perhaps mean "keep"? See WP:DISCUSSAFD. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:40, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, oppose the proposed deletion. Julius Schwarz (talk) 08:09, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Europe of Sovereign Nations Group. This is not identical to the sovereign nations group, but as long as the party remains aspirational, and the article simply instead lists constitutent members that are parties that form the group, the reader would be better served by having this all in one place. Should this become an actual party it is almost certain that reliable sources would cover it as such and at that point it would merit its own article. We are not there yet. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:56, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Parties do not form a group, MEPs form a group. ElTres (talk) 13:48, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  This the best solution ! Pallikari ap' ta Sfakia 16:46, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  This is absolutely not the best solution. These are two distinct legal entities, with different members, different leaders, and different roles. There is no reason to merge these two articles. Even if the Europe of Sovereign Nations (party) did not register as a European political party, it would deserve its own page as a political alliance, of which there are many -- as it would still be distinct from the Europe of Sovereign Nations Group. Julius Schwarz (talk) 16:59, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  There are not two legal entities at this time. Even if there were, the different legal entities are not the reason for having an article page. Both entities would need to be independently notable. At this stage the party is not independently notable. If and when it becomes a reality, and when secondary sources then discuss it, that would be when there should be a page. Until then, it is detail that should be on the group page. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 17:44, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  This is objectively false: there are indeed two separate legal entities. The Europe of Sovereign Nations (party) is not yet endowed with European legal personality, but it is indeed registered as an association in Germany and exists as such. And, although notability is more subjective, the two entities are indeed independently notable, as they do not have the same members and roles. Julius Schwarz (talk) 17:50, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The page is about a party (that does not exist) and not about a precursor association. But again, what we need are secondary sources discussing the party. We don't have any, so this does not meet WP:GNG. When it actually becomes a party, that is likely to change. But to date we have nothing. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 18:00, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  You are free to change "party" to "alliance" or "political alliance" in the title of the page. However, there seems to be a rather strong consensus against deleting this page. Julius Schwarz (talk) 20:35, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The party does exist. Proof can be found in Handelsregister Berlin under registration number VR 41308. It just has not yet been registered as European Political Party by the APPF. I agree that secondary sources were missing from the article and have added some. ElTres (talk) 20:56, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  "Handelsregister Berlin" is a primary source, so not suitable for WP. Pallikari ap' ta Sfakia 17:04, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  For an opinion, no, but for fact? How is a register not a good source for the fact that something is registered? Julius Schwarz (talk) 17:07, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Europe of Sovereign Nations (party) is now a registered European political party. Additional third-party sources were added following the registration. Julius Schwarz (talk) 07:40, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here is my analysis of the 3 new sources you added. They do not change my view. Per WP:SUSTAINED, we see that Wikipedia is a lagging indicator of notability. Articles saying what the AfD intends to do are not sufficient to write an article about a party that does not exist yet. The information is not irrelevant but a reader is poorly served in having to locate and read an article about a party that has not yet come into existence when this information would be better placed on the page about the group and the page about the AfD.

Source assessment table prepared by User:Sirfurboy

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Tagesschau - AfD will Europäische Partei gründen (AfD wants to found a European party) [1]	Tagesschau is a German national news programme/service hosted by a public service broadcaster. Independent and reliable.		The article discusses their plans, and why they are in a hurry to do this - to access funding - but it confirms no such party exists. This information is current for the Alternative fur Deutschland page, but it cannot tell us about this party as an entity, because it doesn't exist yet. This does not significantly describe the party. It does not tell us what the party is. It cannot even tell us the party will definitely come into being. Wikipedia is a lagging indicator of notability and so an article about something that does not exist should not exist. There are existing articles where this information should be discussed.	✘ No
RedaktionsNetzwerk Deutschland - AfD plant Gründung von neuer europäischer Partei (AfD plans to establish new European party) [2]	RDN is the news network for Madsack Media Group which has political control but is independent from the AfD		The same issue as above. The article is about plans, and the desire to access funding. It confirms that the party does not exist yet.	✘ No
ThePostOnline (NL) FVD sluit zich aan bij Europe of Sovereign Nations (FVD joins Europe of Sovereign Nations) [3]	TPO is a Dutch news website. Privately owned but independent.	They aspire to be like Fox news or CNN and rely heavily on comment. I am not sure if they are considered reliable or not.	The article is about the FVD (Forum voor Democratie) joining the ESB. All we have is Forum voor Democratie (FVD) heeft zich, ondanks afwezigheid in het Europees Parlement, aangesloten bij de nieuwe rechtse politieke beweging Europe of Sovereign Nations. Deze beweging is opgericht door de Duitse partij Alternative für Deutschland (AfD), die eerder werd uitgesloten van de fractie Identiteit en Democratie. That is Forum for Democracy (FVD) has joined the new right-wing political movement Europe of Sovereign Nations, despite its absence in the European Parliament. This movement was founded by the German party Alternative für Deutschland (AfD), which was previously excluded from the Identity and Democracy group. That is not significant coverage from which an article can be written.	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:39, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 11:50, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The nom. has nominated deletion, so per nom. would be delete yes? Those stating oppose above probably mean keep. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 13:15, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  i think he means norm like in "normal" Braganza (talk) 16:20, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Also, arguments like "oppose per nom" makes no sense because if you oppose this article's deletion, then how can you agree with the nominator that it should be deleted? It would be helpful if participants used the standard words, Keep, Delete, Merge, Redirect or Draftify.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:27, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it's a legally distinct entity with separate membership and structural organization. If we have Volt, European Communist Action, &c, we should keep this This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 00:31, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What secondary sources cover it? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 10:08, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep no reason to delete Braganza (talk) 15:30, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Braganza: would you mind striking the bolded 'oppose' from your previous !vote, so that you don't accidentally get counted twice? -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 18:31, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

alright Braganza (talk) 18:40, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The more my research on the party progresses, the more I am convinced that it should be deleted. And it's obvious since the article is primarily based on primary sources and has a problem of original research as I have already pointed out with the relevant tag. Meanwhile, those in favour of keeping make no effort to substantiate the notability of the article on the basis of Wikipedia's policy. Probably because they can't. Pallikari ap' ta Sfakia 16:55, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It has already been pointed out that it is a separate entity from the correspondent EP group, with its own separate leadership and membership. It has already been pointed out that the party has been officially registered as party, and is therefore a legal entity on its own (and not just the idea of a project). It has already been pointed out that the existence of pages for EP groups and European parties bearing the same names and containing potentially overlapping information is a standard in the specific context of European politics. Deleting the page for merely procedural reasons would be a mistake to me.--Fm3dici97 (talk) 21:22, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There are two different organizations: a European political party and a European parliamentary group. I see absolutely no point in deleting the party page. I see the problems that this page has, but even they are not a reason for deleting. It's like deleting an article about the European People's Party, merging it into the EPP group (or vice versa).  PLATEL  (talk) 10:25, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But there is not a political party as it hasn't yet been registered as a political party. Registration is pending. But even if we take the pre-registered association as something, there remain no reliable secondary sources covering this. If the party were registered, we might presume notability, but until that happens, it is entirely possible that registration would be withdrawn and it would never be notable. If there were reliable secondary sources significantly covering the party, then it would pass GNG. At this stage neither is true. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 10:34, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is no European political party at this point, as registration is pending, but there is a political alliance, as has already been pointed out several times. Sure, there may need to be further sources, but this shortcoming does not seem to warrant (in the eyes of almost all contributors here) the proposed merger. Julius Schwarz (talk) 10:39, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is no point...no one cares about the lack of sources. Pallikari ap' ta Sfakia 16:44, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Keep, see EPP/EPP Group, ECR Party/ECR Group. I'll grant the article needs improvement, but deletion is out of the question. – GlowstoneUnknown (Talk) 08:34, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The fact that the party exists and that it is a separate legal entity from the group are not, by themselves, a valid argument to keep an article on Wikipedia. The question here is whether the party meets our notability guidelines for a standalone article, or whether the sourced material is better off being merged.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 13:03, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A clearer consensus? Seems pretty clear to me when reading the page.. Julius Schwarz (talk) 18:15, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What sources do we have that discuss the party and provide us information from which an article about this part can be written? We need significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources, per WP:GNG. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 18:20, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I have struck my merge vote above. The registration of the party has succeeded. If it had failed, then this would never have been notable. Now it has succeeded I expect we are WP:TOOSOON in that we do not yet have any sources that meet GNG, but a merge is no longer appropriate as there is now a party which differs from the group. It is too soon, and there isn't sourcing, but a presumption of notabilty would now fall in favour of sources being forthcoming in the future. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 08:35, 2 October 2024‎ (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No sources – no article! I'm happy to change my mind if someone shows significant coverage in independent, reliable sources, which issue has gotten remarkably little attention during this AfD. From a quick skim of the sources in the article, I can only see one (the Euronews one) that actually meets the criteria. Some of the English-language ones also seem to be conflating party and parliamentary group. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 18:38, 4 October 2024 (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.