Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Constitution Party of Alabama

This discussion was subject to a deletion review on 2014 February 19.
For an explanation of the process, see Wikipedia:Deletion review.

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 (all of these) to Constitution Party (United States). This was a long and complicated AfD, not just because of the number of contributors to the discussion and the volume of text written, but also the large number of articles it affects. I thus felt it worthwhile to write a longer closing statement than usual.

There's several basic questions here. First (and, admittedly, out of scope of this AfD), Is the national party notable enough to get an article? Clearly, it is. I don't see any suggestion in any of the discussion below that would hint that it's not. Next, Is there material in the individual state party articles which is (for lack of a better term) encyclopedic? Again, I think the consensus is yes, at least for some of states.

That brings us to a more complicated question, which is, What's the best way to present this material? My gut feeling is that for people who come to the encyclopedia to learn about the party, the most likely thing they're going to type into a search box is constitution party. We best serve their needs by consolidating all the information about the party into one central place. Ultimately, I think that's what this is all about; how do we best serve our users? Of course, typing constitution party into a search box gets them to Constitution Party, not Constitution Party (United States), but at least from there they can quickly navigate to Constitution Party (United States).

Looking over many of the individual state articles, it is obvious that there is a lot of boilerplate duplication between them. This means added work to maintain these articles as the future of the party unfolds. For example, many of the articles say, The party takes very conservative stances on social and fiscal issues. What happens if, in the future, the party also decides to take a stance on environmental issues? Somebody has to go update 50 individual articles to reflect this new platform. Pointless busywork.

OK, so now we're down to the mechanics. Some of the state articles have material which is worth merging into the main article. Some don't. Figuring out which is which is not going to be easy, and might possibly be contentious, but this seems like a task best left for the individual editors who are most familiar with the subject matter. A lot of the material will be best presented in tabular form, but again, that's up to the individual editors who work on the merges.

My last comment is that usually, these sorts of merges happen pretty quickly, within a day or so. Given the number of articles involved, and the complexity of the job, I would urge everybody to have a bit of patience if the task takes longer than that.

I recognize that this close is unconventional. I plead

WP:IAR. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:48, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

Constitution Party of Alabama

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected

csp

|username}}.

)

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

A series of clone articles for non-notable state branches of an insignificant political party. Recommend delete and redirect to Constitution Party (United States). Note in some cases I found state party branches that had some limited claim to viability as in the case of Nevada or the state party had disaffiliated with the national party. In those cases I passed over them and will look at them separately when I have time. Right now my eyes are crossed and fingers hurt from all the typing and tagging. Also quite a number of state branch articles have already been deleted and or turned into redirects to the national party. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:32, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because [articles are about non-notable state branches of an insignificant third party]:

This sort heading added by NAEG (me); I inspected each entry in this section and as of this edit - unless I missed it - they do not have state-specific citations nor unsourced state-specific text about candidates/ballot access/etc.

See also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Constitution Party of Alaska, nominated separately but similarly showing no evidence of independent notability and showing little evidence of its actual history (which is largely that of a splinter faction of the Alaskan Independence Party). RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 01:41, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This sort heading added by NAEG (me); I inspected each entry in this section and as of this edit they do have state-specific citations or at least some unsourced state specific text about candidates/ballot access/etc.

Delete most; but keep Colorado This "minor" party placed 2nd in the 2010 race for Colorado governor. That's notable, in my book. The others that I looked at (admittedly few) do appear to be clones of the same basic insignificance and should be deleted.
NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:36, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment I did not include Colorado's party in the AfD for the reasons cited above. Nevada and a few others were also passed over because they seemed to have a viable claim to notability independent of the national party or they had disaffiliated from the main party. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:43, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all the states with ballot access. The Constitution Party isn't an insignificant party, and deleting a swathe of active third parties strikes me as being a bit excessive. The Drover's Wife (talk) 22:10, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well that's a reasonable argument. I think the rule is that once

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 22:46, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

Comment I am not urging the deletion of the article about the national party. Although politically insignificant on the national level and in all but a handful of states (which I have excluded from this AfD nomination), the national party does meet

WP:N. But with the few acknowledged exceptions the state branches don't even come close. There is no rational argument for these articles if you are actually paying any attention to GNG and ORG. And no, political parties do not have inherent notability. There is also considerable precedent as many of this party's state branch articles have already been deleted or redirected. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:00, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

Parties are not less notable purely because they operate at a state level. All of the parties with ballot access are or have run candidates in major statewide races in the very recent past, and have the sources and media coverage that goes with it, especially because in many of these cases they're one of the only third parties to have ballot access. The notability is there for GNG and ORG - your value judgments about the notability of US state politics are neither here nor there. The Drover's Wife (talk) 13:26, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:21, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:21, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:21, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:21, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is VANDALISM!! What someone considers "insignificant" is a subjective opinion. Ad Orientem freely admits in his/her profile to being a left coast New Yorker Libertarian monarchist - all various political ideologies which strongly differ from those of the Constitution Party. Placing all of these state political parties for consideration of deletion is clearly part of a political agenda and NOT unbiased neutral as is Wiki policy. I don't see any of the Libertarian or Green party state pages flagged for deletion.Lexington62 (talk) 6:23, 10 February 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lexington62 (talk • contribs)

Reply Lexington62 I resent your accusation which is as offensive as it is unfounded. As I VERY CLEARLY STATED in the nom and subsequent comments, the issue here is not significance, but notability. The state branches of this party that I have nominated lack

WP:OTHERSTUFF arguments of user:doncram who cited them as an excuse to give a pass to another non-notable state branch of a minor political party. Frankly I am growing weary of that line of argument which seems more and more prevalent on Wikipedia these days. But the point of course is that this was not some deliberate hunt for neo and paleo-conservative articles to assault. Christian charity demands that I assume you typed in the heat of the moment and did not consciously intend to slander me or otherwise impugn my honor. And so I will forgo referring your remarks to Admin. -Ad Orientem (talk) 07:21, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

Reply Ad Orientem, thanks for bringing up the notability issue. I am well aware of that. In fact, and for the record as can be seen in all of your edit histories, before you added deletion templates to the headers of all of the state parties, almost all of them DID HAVE template boxes indicating that they needed notability. This is because the various state party pages were all set up as Stub pages

West Virginia CP page, it is extensively referenced and is notable for having been influential in state politics, particularly in the area of election law reforms. This not about being offensive. It is about being factual and following already well established Wiki policies to make this a more informative resource website. -Lexington62 (talk) 15:41, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

I am quite happy to reexamine any articles where legitimate evidence of

WP:COI questions. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:26, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

Reply RE: COI, Since the goal is to have all material here fully referenced by relevant sources in an encyclopedic fashion, the affiliation of the person posting the original material is quite moot. The original poster is just planting a seed. Who better to plant seeds than someone with an interest in seeing them grow? Leave the farmers alone. Thank you. Lexington62 (talk) 00:52, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to above – first, in response to "...as an excuse to give a pass to another non-notable state branch of a minor political party." According to what came across my watchlist, that would be
WP:OWN complex over the subject matter as a whole. New election articles are typically written so as to mention only the Democratic and Republican parties, with extreme indifference to any other parties which may have ballot access in a given state, or even that other parties would have ballot access and therefore might possibly have equal footing. Moreover, these same editors have pushed the bizarre POV that having your press release picked up by a media outlet is what makes you a candidate for public office, not actually filing any paperwork such as a declaration of candidacy statement or financial disclosure paperwork. What does this have to do with the Constitution Party? Well, this issue is how I came to recently encounter John R. Myers, the Alaska state party chair. Myers is also running for Alaska governor this year, but has not yet been certified for the ballot. He added his name to that election's article, which was initially reverted with the edit summary calling him a "self-declared candidate". That's funny, because according to their website, the Alaska Public Offices Commission has declared him a candidate, too. If the corporate media has ignored him, that's because he's in no position to make them advertising revenue. It's morally indefensible to parrot that agenda on this non-commercial website. Back to the main point, I sent a message to Mr. Myers. In doing so, I noticed that I was the first person to talk to him like a real human being, rather than inundating him with robo-messaging. He replied, with the gist of it being that he was new to Wikipedia, or at least new to the article about the election he was participating in, and *he couldn't understand why Wikipedia was only mentioning certain candidates*. Of course, I could have said just that and made my point without the Alice's Restaurant version, but I hope I've made things clearer. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 02:43, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Actually I was referring to Justice Party of California. Apologies for not being more clear. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:12, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for this comment. You articulated my own experience watching political/election articles evolve here on Wikipedia much better than I did. We should remember that most media outlets are run by for-profit entities, and thus have their own agendas for marginalizing certain candidates, which we should not automatically perpetuate here. ⇔ ChristTrekker 14:41, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep
WP:ORG. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 15:25, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep em all I haven't seen any reason to delete other than those who dislike templates; a widespread reality of Wikipedia. Jeremy112233 (talk) 05:43, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Then you didn't read, because I and others said ones that have never made ballot access are not
NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 07:51, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
Oh I read all the policies that might apply, and disagree with you. But you definitely should go out of your way to create that list if you are using it as a bench marker here. Jeremy112233 (talk) 15:54, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now, with the exception of the notable state parties mentioned above, which should probably be kept. [Edit: Elaborated on this option in it's own comment, see below] Several of these state parties mentioned in this AfD, in my opinion, very obviously fail
WP:N
and lack enough reliable sources to make for a strong, NPOV article that meets Wikipedia's standards. However, I think it would be a fair compromise to the people interested in writing about third parties in the U.S. if we keep open to the idea of re-creating certain state party articles if their notability changes (if a state party gets ballot access, state/national news coverage, etc).

I would also like to remind everyone about
WP:PERSONAL – we need to be focused not on people's alleged political affiliations, but on our goal here on how to make Wikipedia a better resource, and if these articles up for AfD can do that. :) --Aristeo (talk) 14:08, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
So, just to be clear - you're proposing we delete those without ballot access, and keep those with ballot access? The Drover's Wife (talk) 14:23, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Generally speaking, that sounds like a good rule of thumb. Ballot access can be a notability generating event, but we'll still need to meet the guidelines set by
WP:TOOSOON can apply here once the subjects of these articles get better sourced. --Aristeo (talk) 18:20, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

@The Drover, our notability rules say that notability is never lost. However, I know from 1st hand 3rd party experience that ballot access can be lost. So the proposal as I understand it is to use "ballot access at any time, past or present" as the rule of thumb. After all, the
NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:00, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep All - The American political system is based upon state-level election law and state-level political organizations. The Constitution Party is a notable entity, in WP terms, and therefore it's individual state organizations are notable. I believe that Wikipedia should have the lowest of all possible barriers to inclusion of articles about political parties, their leaders, or their youth sections. This is material which SHOULD be in a comprehensive encyclopedia. Carrite (talk) 19:19, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh hogwash, the
NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:29, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
And that is why the
WP:GNG is a good enough standard for each of these articles. We don't need to raise or lower the bar for the special case of political parties -- or any other topic. If the sources cover it, then it's notable. If they don't, it's not. The least useful, most biased articles on Wikipedia are orphans with few editors looking at them. You avoid that by deleting and merging obscure articles into important ones, and by making sure that every article has sufficient sources to support the content. No sources, not content, and no article. I haven't looked at each of these articles here, but the standard for keeping or deleting them is straightforward: look for significant coverage, and cite it. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:40, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
I agree of course; ballot access is a quick proxy for "significant coverage". Articles for those states should be kept (and if nee be tagged for insufficient sources) but we can assume the sources do exist if ballot access was achieved. Ideally someone who cares would look up sources for those states and plug them in if needed. The harder work is for the rest, where there was never ballot access. For those there might still be "significant coverage" but if no one finds them before this AFD is done then articles for those states should be wasted.
NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:50, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete I am dubious on the notability of the subjects and most look very much like stubs that add no real value.CombatWombat42 (talk) 21:11, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Ad I think you should have started with nominating some of the ones that have little to no notability to them. In some states the Constitution Party has more of a following than other states do. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:07, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note. I actually did look at all of the state branches that had their own pages and several had claims to notability that were independent of the national party such as Nevada and Colorado. I did not include any of them in the AfD. Likewise a few had disaffiliated from the national party, and as long as they had any evidence of ballot access I left them alone as well. The only ones I nominated are state branches of the national party with no claim to notability independent of the national party. They basically are near clones, usually citing the same sources which often make no reference to the particular state's branch of the party. Best regards -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:16, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all those listed I am unable to think of any other organization where we give articles to state branches as a matter of course., even very large voluntary or commercial organizations.The state branches of many such organization are of much more significance in the world than these are, and will have more news items--though they will be routine news items, l or press releases, like here. The argument has been that this is excessive and unencyclopedic proliferation, and does harm to the concept of an encyclopedia. GNG is a test for whether something could have an article, not whether it should have an article. I'm certainly prepared to argue for very strong favor to political and religious bodies, over other sorts of organizations, because these are the sort of ideas that should never be suppressed of grounds of unpopularity, but including the state branches does not suppress anything of significance if we include an article on the main party. but i find this is carrying it beyond the place of reason. I do not see what point of information is gained. A single table listing the candidates in major elections would do, and we already have it at
Electoral history of the Constitution Party (United States). DGG ( talk ) 00:50, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Just a point about the page you just directed us to--it is negatively tagged. Clearly we should not simply rely on old, out of date as the tag calls it, pages in lieu of items that could provide more context. Sure, delete them all, but really, that's the page you feel covers all things with high quality? Also, I feel there is a great deal of laziness above in trying to delete a swath of articles without looking into the merits of each in terms of articles available. There could be hundreds for many of them, but no one here seems to care :) Jeremy112233 (talk) 03:05, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment To try to hone in on a consensus here, I noticed that a number of "keep" comments have been made because there's one or two select articles nominated here (ex.
Constitution Party of Washington
was mentioned) that may warrant enough notability to be kept–or at the very least–merit its own separate AfD discussion.

For those of you that have a particular article from that list that should be kept, could we talk about how that article's subject meets
WP:ORG? --Aristeo (talk) 20:29, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
Good idea and I have no state-specific comment to offer.
NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:33, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete all per
WP:ORG. References mean nothing if they are not reliable or notable, agreed with Ad and Aristeo. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:33, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
There's a lot of sloppy, lazy comments in this discussion. I carpet-bombed
WP:ORG. I have a feeling that if I made the same effort for the other 29 that I did for the Washington article, I'd find the sources to meet the notability minimum for at least a few.
Another note: one of the sources I found was about the Constitution Party of Washington protesting marriage equality, and another was about them protesting a Hindu statue in Idaho. So our sources are telling us that this party is notable not only for electoral activities, but also for their reactionary activism in other areas. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 23:18, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Withdraw AfD nom for Washington State article Although I still think it in most respects is an unnecessary duplication of what is covered in the article on the national party, enough sources have been added to make a credible argument for independent notability. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:46, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – As I pointed out on that page, there is no rationale to justify a separate AFD for Alaska (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Constitution Party of Alaska). Is it possible to merge the two? RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 02:05, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Wyoming & West Virginia - Plenty of notable and relevant references for both.Lexington62 (talk) 04:11, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'd keep them all. Sure they're stubs, and need sources. Third parties in the US are historically notable at shaping policies and having political effects despite small membership and little electoral success. That may or may not be the case here, but there likely aren't that many editors aware of what's happening behind the scenes. Leave the stubs in place so that when one does come along, he doesn't have to start from scratch. Speaking as an editor, it's much easier to add a paragraph and a couple references to an existing article, than to create an all-new article. If these articles are deleted, the same review should be given to all the
bias". ⇔ ChristTrekker 18:14, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

If that were true, then we would also need 50 state chapter stub articles for the
NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:42, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
Then, as I said, apply the same criteria to the LP and GP state parties, or it's clear this process is not objective and neutral. Let's add them to this AfD as well. ⇔ ChristTrekker 19:37, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
To satisfy you that this is "objective and neutral" do we need to include
NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:45, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Thanks to Ad Orientem for the clarification above. The reason I asked for clarification is that your name is attached to a proposal to merge Libertarian Party of California to the national party article. From what else I've seen, this is perhaps part of a greater effort involving possible deletion of scores of articles on a blanket presumption of non-notability. From the articles I've read, the real problem is that they're a lot of empty content for content's sake, in many cases obscuring their actual notability or claim to such, and notability is better resolved on a case-by-case basis, such as we're doing now. The LP has a significant claim to notability by state in a number of cases; the GP, not so much. The GP would certainly be notable on a state level in Alaska, where they previously had ballot access/official party recognition, and the Jim Sykes lawsuit which launched the party is significant in the context of ballot access case law. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 01:41, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Except you're not "picking up doggie doodoo" - you're trying to blow a big hole in Wikipedia's coverage of US state-level politics for no good reason, and supporting the deletion of articles that plainly pass the notability guidelines by putting them up as an omnibus nomination so you can make sweeping claims without having to actually pay any attention to the sources on any of the articles. This nomination is just an attempt to try to end-run Wikipedia's notability guidelines because a few of you don't think US state politics should have detailed coverage on Wikipedia. The Drover's Wife (talk) 03:12, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Gee, you must be talking about this version of this example which was live when you posted.
NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 07:52, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
But this isn't a discussion about the Pennsylvania party. It's a discussion about most of the Constitution Party state parties in the US, all of which have different sources and different levels of notability. You're trying to delete tons of articles based on cherry-picking one that may not have (in the article's current state) obvious guide to notability. Yet the articles you're trying to delete - as can be seen by the many responses here regarding specific states - include plenty that plainly meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Again, you're trying to do an end-run around Wikipedia's notability guidelines with this bogus omnibus nomination and it stinks. The Drover's Wife (talk) 08:54, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oh my mistake, I guess you must have meant this other one. Strange you have enough time to insult your co-editors but not enough time to actually try to improve these articles you're in such a tizzy about.
NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 09:56, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep Utah - Notable, reliable, relevant references. - Lexington62 (talk) 03:09, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I see no reason why these state-level organizations should inherit notability from their national-level partner. I see no major precedent that doesn't fall into
WP:ORG
. I think that's incredibly obvious. I was hoping that this discussion would come to that conclusion and start moving towards subject-by-subject decisions but it seems to have degraded into all-or-nothing arguments.

To salvage something out of this AfD, I think the easiest thing to do would be to decide with consensus which articles satisfy
WP:N
on a case-by-case basis. After the AfD is closed, any articles that were left over can be taken to other/another AfD(s) where we're not trying to determine the notability of 50 subjects at one time. That's difficult even when political opinions aren't consciously or subconsciously affecting the discussion.

This proposal doesn't follow
WP:AFD but I think that's acceptable if the alternative is posting ~50 individual AfDs. Even so, I'd support 50 separate AfDs over an all-or-nothing decision. OlYeller21^Talktome 17:53, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

I see that there are 32 (31 after a withdrawal). My opinion hasn't changed. OlYeller21^Talktome 17:55, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree this is the way to go. Notability isn't inherited from the national party, each organisation has to have its own notability established. And nothing here depends upon ChristTrekker's suggestion that other party organisations may not be notable, ChristTrekker is free to take any article to AfD so long as he first checks the organisation against our notability criteria. Let's drop that line of discussion and also the personal attacks. This was made a lot more difficult when someone removed redirects of non-notable parties, creating new articles. It's hard to deal with a lot of related articles the vast majority of which are non-notable. Bundling made sense but we still have to winnow the wheat from the chaff.
talk) 18:44, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Agreed; I have started a sort in the original post, strictly according to the presence of a citation uniquely about the state or at least a teensy bit of state specific text for which a cite might be found someday. I'm not suggesting that each state in that group is in fact notable, but certainly the untweaked templates are not and do not inherit notability from the national article so at least in that first section of the sort those states should either get citations showing notability or should be deleted.
NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:13, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: NewsAndEventsGuy's re-sorting just accentuates the fact that the first mentioned, previously, have all been fixed up. Putting other ones first is just obscuring the fact that any one of these seems to be relatively easily justified by additions of sources. So I think the order should be resorted back, and I object to the call that all must now be fixed on basis of AFD is not for cleanup...I vote Keep All below. --do ncr am 20:25, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all, on basis of apparent notability of several once examined (the first three that were listed in original order in the nom,
wp:BEFORE onus on the nominator to search for sources before nominating at AFD, on basis of "AFD is not for cleanup" and on basis of the relative selectivity of this AFD to go after all the U.S. state parties of one political party and not others. At the previously mentioned [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Justice Party of California, I suggested that a general RFC about notability standards for state parties would probably be good. This multi-part AFD is not the right venue to come collegially to a good standard, with education of interested ~~persons~~editors for all the U.S. political parties articles. --do ncr am 20:25, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
I'd appreciate it if you'd clarify your statement. If you feel that an AfD must have one conclusion for all listed articles, that simply isn't true. Some can be deleted while others are !deleted. Alternately, I chose to assume that you're not arguing that 31 subjects are notable based on your assessment of 3 articles because there's no guideline or even precedent that supports that argument.

Your opinion that state parties are notable outside of current
WP:IAR
argument and I don't see any reason to ignore current guidelines.

I'm having a hard time deciphering your last sentece. If you're saying that we should keep the article to educate "interested people for all the U.S. political parties", I respectfully disagree that we should keep an article because it's educational. There's a standard for includion of subjects covered at
WP:N and the goal of educating is and to my knowledge, has never been a goal for this project. OlYeller21^Talktome 20:51, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
I meant an RFC to serve/educate the wikipedia editors of the wikipedia articles on state parties, have edited my comment to clarify that. My argument is not IAR. The first 3 of many nominated have now been reviewed, and voila there are a lot of sources for them. It is reasonable to expect that sources are available for most or all of the others, just not done yet. What should be done is tag the articles for more development. And perhaps an RFC about what standards should be, but I don't care to launch that myself, as I don't see a big problem here.

Why not nominate all articles in Wikipedia for deletion? That would force all the bad ones to be improved immediately, right? Well, that is not acceptable because it would be forcing editors to drop everything else to respond, and to cleanup upon demand of one editor who hasn't done the necessary work. Essay
WP:AFDISNTCLEANUP expresses that. --do ncr am 21:12, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
Battle of the links, huh? Ok....
WP:NOTABILITY
= policy

WP:DELETE
= policy

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:59, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

You're still falsely claiming these support your argument - which is exactly why you just reordered the list to hide the fact that those at the original top had been easily sourced given the opportunity. The Drover's Wife (talk) 04:16, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 07:10, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Merge almoust all with Constitution Party - I vote to merge almoust all of the pages with the main party page except of a few, mentioned above, who are clearly notable in their states. I would do this to all other parties. Reasson are simple. How many pages of thesame party are we to have? Lets take one example, Russia. Russia is divided into 82 regions. Each party have both national and regional party. Lets just say 5-10 party times 82 regions! I can do that but I guess others on wiki would not like it. To many pages on thesame thing right. Very few of the state partys except of Utah and Colorado have made any bigger notability in their own state. For a person who would like to know more about Constitution Party it would be way easier to do it thru the main party page where all this state ones are merged to than go thru each and every one of them.Stepojevac (talk) 14:33, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, I had been planning on saying much the same thing after AFD closes regarding whatever states survive
NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:50, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
The redirects won't last thirty seconds, so don't even bother. You won't succeed in trying to *again* circumvent Wikipedia's procedures by deleting-via-redirect articles you couldn't get a consensus to delete. The Drover's Wife (talk) 04:50, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Add to my !vote Merge remainder, under
NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 10:11, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

I would be comfortable with a merge and redirect of the articles. Despite the added sources, almost all provide no substantive information that is not already in the main party's article. And I concur that this should be the approach to taken with all political parties where there is not a strong claim to independent notability. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:19, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge almoust all with Constitution Party Many of the articles offer nothing substantive that is not in the national part page and are a single paragraph. Indeed, a few of the more fleshed out state articles give the same candidates for running for national office, but nothing different than the national party.Wzrd1 (talk) 00:18, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete those without ballot access - or merge and redirect as suggested by others above. GNG is the minimum and not all of these state parties meet the criteria for notability.
talk) 19:15, 18 February 2014 (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.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Constitution_Party_of_Alabama&oldid=1223527585"