Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/America's We The People


 * 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   delete.  MBisanz  talk 03:08, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

America's We The People
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

This party has only received in-passing coverage as far as I can tell. The "Boston TV Party" may be a notable event, but even in the coverage of it, there is no non-trivial coverage of the We the People party.

Just as articles aren't meant to have trivia sections, neither is Wikipedia intended to be a collection of trivia about non-notable organizations, even if they are political parties. Bongo matic  09:20, 20 January 2009 (UTC) 
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton Tropical  Cyclone  00:38, 25 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete I don't understand why this has lasted this long. Miami33139 (talk) 00:56, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Even a minor third party, active in multiple states, is notable.  The party website has reprints of numerous reliable secondary sources (beyond the Boston TV party incident), which would easily establish notability if someone were to track them down at their original publishing sites to confirm they haven't been fabricated (no reason to think so, just to be on the safe side).  I have added mentions of the party in the New York Times and The Guardian which confirm the party meets WP:ORG's requirements regarding non-local coverage.  The article needs to be re-written, but that's not a valid reason for deletion.  Baileypalblue (talk) 02:12, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but the entire coverage in the NY Times is "said Jeffrey Peters, a New Hampshire resident who is head of a group called We the People that advocates greater political participation". This does not constitute non-trivial coverage of We the People. The Guardian's entire mention is "Jeffrey Peters (We The People party)". Neither can this be considered non-trivial. Bongo  matic  02:17, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth, the cites you are referring to were added in response to one of the secondary notability criteria for non-commercial organizations, to wit: "Organizations whose activities are local in scope may be notable where there is verifiable information from reliable independent sources outside the organization's local area". Note this criterion does not require non-trivial coverage, only "verifiable information".  The subject still has to meet the general notability criteria, and I contend it does (see the rest of my comment); if you doubt the organization is notable, look at the reliable sources archived at the party's website.  Furthermore, remember that lack of reliable sourcing is not a valid criterion for article deletion, unless the subject "cannot possibly be attributed to reliable sources".  Baileypalblue (talk) 06:14, 25 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Did you read "The scope of their activities is national or international in scale."? Delete, insignificant.  AnyPerson (talk) 06:31, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Look at that policy again, please. It says: "Organizations are usually notable if they meet both of the following standards ... The scope of their activities is national or international in scale".  That does not mean that local organizations are non-notable, only that national/international organizations are generally notable.  Further on in the paragraph local organizations are discussed: "Organizations whose activities are local in scope may be notable where there is verifiable information from reliable independent sources outside the organization's local area."  It is emphatically not true that only national or international organizations are notable; rather, there's another criterion to be met for local organizations.  Baileypalblue (talk) 07:43, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Since Wikilawyering is the order of the day, it is worth noting that "may be" does not mean "are automatically", and that in common English, a passing mention of the existence of an organization is not necessarily considered "information" about that organization. Bongo  matic  07:56, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * And I can see I've side-tracked the discussion with what I intended to be a pro-forma effort to satisfy a secondary criterion that, actually, doesn't apply, because a political party that runs candidates for President in multiple states is not a local organization. Sorry to have derailed the discussion.  Baileypalblue (talk) 07:46, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Are you suggesting that its activities are "national in scope"? I think that would be a view not supported by the consensus definition of that term. Bongo  matic  07:56, 25 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Strong delete. "156 votes" in a national presidential election is the epitome of non-notable.  No non-trivial press coverage.  Has no chance of becoming more notable, because it seems to have ceased to exist.  Embarrassingly factually inaccurate, as it talks about the "2006 US presidential elections."  If the article somehow survives this AFD, it needs a complete rewrite. THF (talk) 13:15, 25 January 2009 (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.