Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Green Party of New Mexico

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.

Green Party of New Mexico

Green Party of New Mexico (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

Non-notable state branch of a notable federal party. Toa Nidhiki05 19:05, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, and New Mexico. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:13, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to List of state Green Parties in the United States Reywas92^Talk 20:14, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to
  SPEAK 21:06, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep as one would expect for an established party in existence for nearly 30 years, there is sufficient coverage to pass GNG available via newspapers.com.--User:Namiba 12:28, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete articles need to be based on sources that are indepdent of the organization, secondary, and provide indepth coverage. None of the sources here are such.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:33, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 02:04, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I added a couple of citations with brief mentions CT55555 (talk) 14:55, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Within the first few minutes of searching, I found a front page newspaper articles covering the state party.^[1][2] A clear presence within New Mexico newspaper archives to establish a stand alone article with reliable sourcing; a small sample of a very large range of articles.^{[3][4][5][6][7]}

Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 01:00, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Please consider whether the new sources establish notability for a stand-alone article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:44, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment could the nominator please share the results of their
  WP:BEFORE analysis to help inform our decision making? CT55555 (talk) 11:51, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  I have no clue what you're getting at, but I don't typically keep a record of nonexistent sources for non-notable political parties that don't meet

  WP:SIGCOV. Toa Nidhiki05 12:45, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  What I'm getting at is that there is a policy that informs the steps you should take before nominating articles for deletion and it includes searching for them in multiple places and it's not clear to me if you have done that. And therefore you are sort of forcing everyone else to do the background work that you should do before you nominate things for deletion. CT55555 (talk) 12:54, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm well aware of BEFORE, I've been here for 15 years, and I would strongly encourage you to stop making

  WP:BADFAITH claims that I'm not following it. Toa Nidhiki05 12:57, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  I didn't make any claim. I asked what you found when you did it (clearly assuming you did it) and then you said you didn't know what I was getting it, suggesting you didn't understand. CT55555 (talk) 13:02, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Let me try and phrase this a different way: if you did all the searches and they found nothing, could you say that, it would make it easier for people to make informed comments. CT55555 (talk) 13:05, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I wouldn't have nominated this article for deletion if I found reliable, non-trivial coverage sufficient to meet

  WP:SIGCOV. This standard applies to every non-notable minor political party I've nominated for deletion. Toa Nidhiki05 13:09, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  I know, you nominate a lot. And I like to make informed comment on them and each time you nominate without mentioning what searching indicated, it essentially forces anyone who wants to make an informed comment to repeat the process. As you are obviously doing all the work yourself, I'm requesting that you mention it.

  To look at it another way, I'm asking if you could please give us more context in your nominations. CT55555 (talk) 13:15, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - the sources above provided by
  WP:GNG. In addition, when I searched Newspapers.com, I found many more articles (which I didn't bother to go through, I'm quite satisfied with the ones they provided.) Jacona (talk) 15:02, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep per Goldsztajn and Jacona. There is enough sourcing to pass
  WP:GNG. Sal2100 (talk) 16:46, 8 April 2022 (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.