Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lion of Saint Mark (political party)

Lion of Saint Mark (political party)

[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)

An unknown party that existed and nothing more. The very few and only existing sources, indeed, just mention the fact that this list did exist. If there were a page about Italico Corradino Cappellotto (founder of this list), it could be merged to it, but the page on him does not exist either. It seems really difficult to find the usefulness of this page. Scia Della Cometa (talk) 13:09, 3 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)} 13:31, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Every little piece of political history deserves a space in Wikipedia, whose greatness lies specifically in gathering and organising infos which would be difficult to find elsewhere. This AfD subject is particularly notable because it was the first political party representing Venetian nationalism. The article is properly sourced and is clearly relevant for Wikipedia, an ideology and movement that has long become dominant in the 5-million region of Veneto. Of course, it is not easy to find more sources on an old minor political party, but it is very important that Wikipedia keeps having articles also on little-known subjects. If, regrettably, there is no consensus on keeping it as a stand-alone article, let's merge it with Venetian nationalism, at least, even though it is clearly better for readers to navigate from article to article than finding infos on a subject in larger articles. --Checco (talk) 14:38, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This was simply one of the many lists that participated in the 1921 elections. The page merely indicates its leader and ideology, nothing else. A page is not just for stating in two lines that something existed. However, a mention on the Venetian nationalism page through a merge would be a sensible solution.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 16:42, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because it is forerunner of many Venetian nationalism and generally im the opinion that most pre-WWII parties should have articles Braganza (talk) 12:46, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An explanation as to why this party has encyclopedic relevance would also be needed...--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 13:47, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I particulary agree with User:Braganza. Of course, it is difficult to find sources and more information on pre-WWI political parties (please note that most articles on pre-WWI political parties are very short), but the subject is clearly encyclopedic and I would ask User:P1221 and User:Autospark to re-consider their position in favour of an outright "keep". However, I will try to find more information and sources. --Checco (talk) 08:45, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Some articles on pre-WWI political parties are very short, but they are parties with well-defined histories and which have won seats in the Chamber of Deputies. In this case the list did not win seats and there is not even a well-defined history, the only thing we know is its leader and its participation in the 1921 general elections...--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 13:56, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Venetian nationalism as it is; I would consider to keep it only if the article is expanded. P1221 (talk) 15:31, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, as per P1221 – would prefer if the article could be expanded upon and maintain its standalone article status, however.--Autospark (talk) 10:44, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I am in favour to keep this article, even though it would be nice to find other sources for expanding it. It is indeed a precursor of late XXth century autonomist and regionalist parties in Veneto. I do not generally agree with the utilitarian use of Wikipedia pages: if the sources are verifiable, reliable and all the other requirements from the Guidelines, therefore even minor articles deserve to stay here. Filippo83 (talk) 21:58, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]