Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Duo-raadslid

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 merge to Municipal council (Netherlands). (non-admin closure) ——Serial 16:11, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Duo-raadslid[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)

It exists, it has mentions (only really in Dutch) and a Dutch article on WP. However, I'm not convinced it meets the threshold for notability needed for a stand-alone article. It is essentially a definition, as are the other sources I could find. There are WP:ATDs: a possible merge/redirect or just redirect to either Municipal council or Municipal politics in the Netherlands. There is also the less-good option of a soft redirect to Wiktionary. Boleyn (talk) 13:33, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 13:51, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. ~ Amkgp 💬 14:27, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Municipal council (Netherlands) per nom. Reywas92^Talk 19:57, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DMySon 04:39, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DMySon 05:00, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Municipal council (Netherlands). Regardless of notability, as a matter of good information stewardship. gidonb (talk) 22:55, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment my only concern about a merge rather than just a redirect, is that all the info in this article is completely unsourced. Boleyn (talk) 08:24, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Boleyn, I have added a first reference, undermining your point and that of user:ravenswing below me. [LATER ADDITION: As it was at that time. Has since been expanded to one that is closer to that of Reywas92 and me. gidonb (talk) 15:21, 26 July 2020 (UTC)] It's easy to add more. When information is correct, it should be disucssed on its merits for WP, not on possibly missing references. gidonb (talk) 14:08, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You're kidding, right? Did you actually read the source, or just linked the first hit you found for "duo-raaslid?" The part of the link you posted referring to the subject is "- duoraadslid: een raadscommissielid, niet zijnde een lid van de raad" or, roughly translated, "dual member of the council: a member of the council, other than a member of the council." That is, at level best, a dicdef, and it certainly doesn't support the statement to which you tagged it. It likewise does not meet the GNG, nor any notability criteria extant on Wikipedia. If you're going to lecture us on the "merits," kindly do us the honor of doing so with genuine qualifying information, rather than hoping we're not paying attention. Ravenswing 15:07, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not kidding. It supports exactly the text it references. As the intro correctly states "It exists, it has mentions (only really in Dutch) and a Dutch article on WP." We should merge it. gidonb (talk) 20:52, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Then I don't know what to say that would be within the bounds of WP:CIVIL, since the real sentence that cite allegedly supported was "The Duo-Raadslid is a representative of a political party who is not elected into a city council." I have removed it again. Ravenswing 06:19, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Word of advice: always question yourself before you question others. You seem to read Dutch through autotranslator. This can easily lead to wrong conclusions. To the discussion closer: there is another valid reference that you can find in the edit history that was twice "removed". I'm not going to edit war over someone's misunderstanding of Dutch. gidonb (talk) 15:01, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I agree that there's nothing sourced to merge. That being said, the concept's already discussed as far as it's noteworthy in the Municipal council article, and a redirect would not be inappropriate Ravenswing 09:24, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,   Kadzi   (talk) 09:53, 29 July 2020 (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.