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. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 19:53, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative for Sweden[edit]

Alternative for Sweden (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Not notable per lack of WP:ORGDEPTH. The footnotes are numerous, but if we ignore the plentiful references to AFS's own material (which is not a reliable source, nor independent), the other references are trivial mentions which do not go to establishing notability. Sources such as Svenska Dagbladet, Expressen, Sveriges Radio and MediaMatters are indeed independent, reliable, and secondary, but the references to them are not significant. They lack WP:ORGDEPTH, whereby "deep or significant coverage provides an overview, description, commentary, survey, study, discussion, analysis, or evaluation of the product, company, or organization". Nyheter24 and Fria Tider also purvey only trivial mentions, as well as, in those cases, being of dubious reliability. Expo (magazine)[1] is the single exception, as it's both reliable and provides significant coverage (describing AFS as "A right-wing extremist party characterized by anti-Muslim propaganda and ethnonationalism... and [with] clear points of contact with the Swedish white power environment" (per Google Translate)). Mind you, I can't find any reference to Expo's description in the article — the footnotes are poorly formatted, so it may be hiding). But there is a reference in the corresponding Swedish article, which could easily be imported. That's surely not enough reliable coverage, though. Bishonen | tålk 17:00, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:43, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:43, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:43, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - the sources need improving, but this party has played a part in Sweden's history, complete with two Riksdag members claiming allegiance at one part. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:48, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Article needs improvements. But this party is definitely a notable party. And as stated above two Riksdag members for other partys have been claiming allegiance. Per WP:GNG.BabbaQ (talk) 18:07, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete (or Merge) — I regret making the article in retrospect, because I think the time it was created was the peak of the subject's notability. The party failed to return anyone to the Riksdag in the 2018 election, and it doesn't seem to have been in the news much at all since the original MPs' defections. Especially on the English Wikipedia it doesn't seem notable enough. It maybe should be merged into the Gustav Kasselstrand article. —ajf (talk) 19:37, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some other things to think about: “Alternative for Sweden” is never mentioned in the Sweden Democrats article, which is the one place other than Kasselstrand's article that I'd most expect to see a mention of AfS, and there's also extremely few English-language references in the current article. —ajf (talk) 19:43, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - this is swedens 10th largest party, and if National Democrats (Sweden) and Party of the Swedes is notable, so is this party (which is 10 times larger than the other parties i mentioned here) Gooduserdude (talk) 12:25, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps those pages should be deleted too, then. —ajf (talk) 16:10, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, those pages should not be deleted too, they are also notable Gooduserdude (talk) 16:20, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – I leaned "keep" at first given their relative visibility in the news over the past couple of weeks, but it really is a brief flurry, around their participation in the Church of Sweden elections (where they got all of 10,000 votes throughout the country). That they are a tiny fringe group doesn't mean they couldn't be notable anyway, but I don't see the sustained and significant coverage in reliable independent sources. --bonadea contributions talk 12:16, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - The party enjoys a substantial media coverage and it's one of the larger parties outside of the riksdag. The fact that the article has few English-language references is totally irrelevant per WP:NOENG. However, I do agree that there is work to be done about improving the sources and adding proper maintenance tags to the article is a better alternative than rather just delete. Shellwood (talk) 15:13, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I was expecting more significant coverage than I could find, to be honest, but I think there's enough to qualify the minimum requirements. As Bonadea states, they're not too visible in the media on a sustained basis; just looking at Swedish print media in w:sv:Mediearkivet for articles that mention "Alternativ för Sverige", I get 1277 hits, 264 in 2019, 143 in 2020 and 507 so far in 2021. (A few of these are probably false positives, talking about an alternative for Sweden in som other context, but most of them will be about the party.) This is mainly not the kind of material we're looking for, and I'm not sure I'd call it substantial. They did, however, not just get several seats in the nationwide elections for the Church of Sweden recently, but also had a couple of Members of Parliament in the Swedish Riksdag in the summer of 2018, in addition to getting enough coverage, looking both at sources currently in the article and some of what's not, though I should stress that most of that is "this MP defects to AfS", "what will AfS mean for the Sweden Democrats in the election?" or "AfS got a few seats in the church election". But there are relevant, separate political events with several years in between them, and coverage of those. /Julle (talk) 22:07, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This wouldn't be all articles in Swedish print media, to be clear; not all newspapers are included. But most of the important ones are, and it should give a decent indication of how coverage has differed over the years. /Julle (talk) 22:14, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• ’’’Keep’’’: There are hundreds of articles about Trotskyist groupuscules all over the world. If we’re to cover those than a much larger party that actually has had some representation seems like it ought to be kept This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 14:29, 23 September 2021 (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.