Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wisconsin Green Party

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.

Wisconsin Green Party

Wisconsin Green Party (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)

The subject fails to assert notability, along with any references or in-line citations both to back up just an assertation, along with other claims made in the article. Me-123567-Me (talk) 16:52, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:54, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:54, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:54, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep the Wisconsin Green Party is a recognized statewide political party with a history dating back to 1988 and a number of elected officials. While the article surely needs to be cleaned up and better citations are needed, deleting it would serve no purpose whatsoever.--TM 03:46, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Per Namiba. If the state of Wisconsin recognizes it, we are good to go. Looks like they've actually elected people, that's a plus. Some cleanup and expansion would b good, though. Montanabw^(talk) 04:51, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment  This article is in bad shape.  However, WP:Deletion policy is not the answer as WP:Deletion policy is not for editorial disputes.  Unscintillating (talk) 11:50, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I removed a lot of unverifiable material and BLP violations.  Feel free to revert.  Unscintillating (talk) 12:21, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've already reverted. There were no controversial statements about living people, therefore no

WP:BLP violations. All of the material you deleted is verifiable. I've verified it with two sources. There is a big difference between "unverifiable" and uncited.--TM 12:34, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

There isn't. Anything that is NOT cited is allowed to be removed from an article. Me-123567-Me (talk) 16:42, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Per Namiba. The Wisconsin Green Book is mentioned in the Wisconsin Blue Book 2015-2016, pg. 856-860 and has information about the officials of the party and the party's platform. Thank you-RFD (talk) 13:07, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Just because a pary carries the name "Green Party" does NOT make it inheriently notable. Notability is not show in the article. And the article is poorly sourced, not even salvagable at this point if you take out all the stuff that is unsourced. Me-123567-Me (talk) 16:47, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Per
  WP:ORGSIG: "No company or organization is considered inherently notable. No organization is exempt from this requirement, no matter what kind of organization it is, including schools. If the individual organization has received no or very little notice from independent sources, then it is not notable simply because other individual organizations of its type are commonly notable or merely because it exists (see "If it's not notable", below). "Notability" is not synonymous with "fame" or "importance." No matter how "important" editors may personally believe an organization to be, it should not have a stand-alone article in Wikipedia unless reliable sources independent of the organization have discussed it." Me-123567-Me (talk) 16:59, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Speedy keep, speedy close, and sanction the nom, who is engaged in an apparently politically motivated deletion jihad. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 20:51, 3 January 2016 (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.