Talk:International Freedom Alliance

Islam Low‑importance

	Islam portal This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Islam, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Islam-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IslamWikipedia:WikiProject IslamTemplate:WikiProject IslamIslam-related articles
Low	This redirect has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Organizations Low‑importance

	This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Organizations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Organizations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OrganizationsWikipedia:WikiProject OrganizationsTemplate:WikiProject Organizationsorganization articles
Low	This redirect has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Deletion?[edit]

The "speedy deletion" tag was placed much too speedy, literally while I was still busy editing this stub. In the meantime I urge other editors to contribute to this page, or the discussion to uphold it or not. --JanDeFietser (talk) 04:08, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is a (very strong) argument that the International Freedom Alliance is not sufficiently notable for a Wikipedia article at present. Will it have lasting significance? Will they succeed outside the Netherlands? It's far too early to tell. The relevant guideline is found at WP:BREAKING. This article might be taken to WP:AFD and it might end up getting deleted there - but at least you'll get a chance to argue your case. I don't think the speedy deletion tag was appropriate, so I have removed it. Thparkth (talk) 04:20, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reaction. You ask 2 questions: 1. Will it (= the International Freedom Alliance) have lasting significance? and 2. Will they (who?) succeed outside the Netherlands? Though I really appreciate questions (not asking questions is the mark of the too eager and even trigger happy ignorants), asking them is at itself NOT yet an argument for any deletion, let alone a "very strong" one, but just suggestion. When I just answer 1. Yes and 2. Yes, is the argument refuted then? By the way, I assure you that I am NOT a sympathizer of Wilders or his party PVV, but just noticing a development of which I foresee extended and long lasting consequences. JanDeFietser (talk) 04:34, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not proposing to delete the article. But if someone else does, those are the arguments they will most probably make. You need to understand that per Wikipedia policy, those are pretty good arguments. It will be easy to assess the significance and notability of this organization in ten year's time (when they will either have changed the world, or never have been mentioned in the press again) but it's very hard now to say what their significance will be. Wikipedia is not a newspaper and does not need to cover breaking news and current events. As I say, those are good arguments in terms of Wikipedia policy, but they are not fatal ones. It might also be argued that given the prominence of the Dutch party and the people involved, this effort can confidently be said to be notable already, even if it is not successful. That's also a pretty good argument. It's not an open-and-shut case. Thparkth (talk) 04:41, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your kind reply. Questions are and can not be, however esteemed or appreciated, an argument in itself. They are just questions. It is the answers to these questions that might be the arguments. These answers are still lacking yet. See perhaps the famous Monty Python Argument Clinic. When it is stated that it is too early to decide if a topic will be a lasting one, should this be a reason then to remove or to retain a page? (question!) I think reasoning can direct us both ways. --JanDeFietser (talk) 04:56, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This article does seem premature. Wilders announced the IFA only four days ago; its notability cannot be determined. Further, the exact nature of the IFA is still unclear; which groups and individuals which will compose it, the manner in which it will be organized, the activities it will carry out, etc., are not yet known. The IFA hasn't even a proper website yet. For now, it might be best to just have the section in the Geert Wilders article, and then split it off later should it become notable. --darolew (talk) 02:06, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Too many SAs[edit]

It can't be appropriate to have so many See Also links - please try and reduce them. PamD (talk) 07:52, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree, there is a lot of overlap: but which do you suggest then to be removed? --JanDeFietser (talk) 08:36, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I removed some SAs, but the distinction I could make was rather arbitrarily. For the moment, I leave the rest to other editors. Ideas welcome.--JanDeFietser (talk) 10:52, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I removed most of them. For such a short article, more than seven or eight links looks bad; the 'See also' section should be shorter than the article... --darolew (talk) 01:44, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Violations of WP:LABEL[edit]

An editor is inserting inflammatory labels into the article. This is prohibited in most cases. WP:LABEL says that contentious labels are "best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources." The current formulations fail the policy. I'm removing the labels per policy.– Lionel ^(talk) 23:52, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fully agree with you.Estlandia (Miacek) (dialogue) 06:03, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Geert Wilders[edit]

The notability of the organization depends on its founder and its activities revolve around its founder, Geert Wilders. I suggest we merge this article into Geert Wilders. Jason from nyc (talk) 02:28, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on International Freedom Alliance. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100924130521/http://www.pattayadailynews.com/en/2010/07/17/dutch-politician-plans-on-global-spread-of-anti-islam-party/ to http://www.pattayadailynews.com/en/2010/07/17/dutch-politician-plans-on-global-spread-of-anti-islam-party/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:20, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]