Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Presidium of the Bundesrat
- 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. Nomination has essentially been withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Lepricavark (talk) 23:57, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
- Presidium of the Bundesrat (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Article already exists at Bundesrat of Germany and President of the German Bundesrat. No references. Toreightyone (talk) 01:56, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Happy2018! (distænt write) 02:16, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Happy2018! (distænt write) 02:16, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Happy2018! (distænt write) 02:16, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
- Keep Hello Toreightyone. This is an article about the Presidium, and not the President. There's no mention of the Presidium in either of the articles you mention. The Presidium is considered amongst the top constitutionally recognized bodies in the said government, and consists of the President and top three deputies, who represent the Bundesrat of Germany. The article needs to be improved, but many reliable sources exist discussing the topic significantly, and allow the threshold of notability to be met. I have re-worded the article, added relevant sources, for your perusal. Would you take a look when possible and tell me if it works for you? Thanks, Lourdes 03:56, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
- Per [1] Presidium is a body within Bundesrat, so I think this has to be Keep. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 12:05, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
- Keep There are now three references in the article. Unscintillating (talk) 13:18, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
Due to the recent expansion, I'd say the article now makes sense and stands out as a separate topic. Thanks, Toreightyone (talk) 13:41, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
- Keep. Good-faith article expansion has now expanded this article out, and any AfD concerns have now been addressed. Ejgreen77 (talk) 23:37, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
- 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.