Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/American Socialist 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.

The result was   redirect to Socialist Party of America. Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:28, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

American Socialist Party

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

This unreferenced article is entirely based on the party's own statements. There appears to be no independent evidence that it even exists, let alone that it is notable. It is written from the subjective view of a member, largely quoting party documents, for which apparently OTRS permission has been granted. Despite being tagged for weeks for neutrality, original research, inappropriate tone and several other issues, no attempt has been made to improve this article.

As it stands, it is simply an advertisement for this dubiously notable alleged party; it has no place in its current form in Wikipedia. RolandR (talk) 09:22, 19 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Userfy as not apparently even making a nominal assertion of notability, and having no references (checking the NYT et al) to support an independent claim thereof. Note that this party is not the circa 1916 party of Debs, but a new version not appearing to be a proper direct heir to that name. Collect (talk) 10:21, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Socialist Party of America. I am finding scant evidence of their existence, but nothing of note in WP:RS. Most recent coverage is scaremongering in blogs and newspaper letters to the editor. This is, however, historically the name of a political party that existed from around the turn of the 20th century through the 1970s. What remains of this party is now known as the Socialist Party of America. As such, it is a possible search term and redirect seems the better option here. Redfarmer (talk) 10:21, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * This was a redirect for several years. But last month, the redirect page was turned into this "article". RolandR (talk) 11:03, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * If the redirect is reverted again, you can always ask for some WP:SALT if this discussion finds the organization is not notable. Redfarmer (talk) 12:02, 19 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:44, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:45, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete No evidence that any such party exists. The webiste calls it "America's Socialist Party", which is different from the name of the article.  TFD (talk) 01:35, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * keep/merge article is notable, may need improvement but improvement is not equated with reasons for deletion. That said as the above reccomends it can be redirected to the other such name (unless the 2 are distinctly different from each other.(Lihaas (talk) 10:23, 23 October 2010 (UTC));


 * Merge usable content to Socialist Party USA. This seems to be a dissident group in Indiana trying to split from the Socialist Party USA. What they have so far is a Socialist Central Committee, Ltd. Previously this group led by Ronald Haldeman was called the Greater Indianapolis Socialist Party and is still listed on SP USA web site. Restore original redirect to Socialist Party of America. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 15:42, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The Socialist Central Committee, Ltd defines itself as "a not-for-profit corporate structure". Can it in any way be regarded as a socialist political party? RolandR (talk) 16:29, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Each state has its own respective laws regarding how or what type of party can exist. A party can exist as a not-for-profit or as an organization of people. Some parties exist based on voter turnout or voter registration or even petitions signed, while other state only need a listing, see American Socialists Political Party that is the DBA (Doing Business As) American Socialist Party. Within Florida (just one state alone) there are several other classifications. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.91.148.253 (talk) 08:22, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cirt (talk) 00:13, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Blank and redirect to Socialist Party of America. Zero hits for "America's Socialist Party" on NY Times, Washington Post and not even on the Huffington Post.  Google and Yahoo! search brings up some random social networking sites, blogs, home-made web pages and forums. After all the unsuitable material was removed from the page there is nothing left to merge.  Veriss (talk) 03:33, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Biased and limited sources, to say that there "Cannot be any new group" or that, "All that was is all that will be" leaves no room for improvement or other types of movements. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.91.148.253 (talk) 08:28, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Delete - Left political history is actually my main topic of interest on Wikipedia... This is a non-notable organization at this point, forcing a merge into SPUSA, as suggested above, is wrong. I favor an ultra-inclusionist policy regarding political parties, and thus have no bias against recreation if this can be demonstrated to be a valid, actually extant organization. But it's not, in my estimation. Carrite (talk) 01:51, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per Carrite, this is his speciality.--Milowent • talkblp-r 05:30, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Redirect, but do not merge into Socialist Party of America. And if it gets turned into an article again, WP:SALT it. I agree with Carrite's rationale, this is a non-notable organisation and should not be merged into an unrelated article. However, it is conceivable that someone searching for the Socialist Party of America article to type in American Socialist Party, especially if they're not familiar with the actual name, so a redirect should be retained.--hkr Laozi speak  13:31, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Redirect precisely per hkr. This is a plausible search term for "Socialist Party of America", so should not be a redlink.  Protecting the redirect is an option.— S Marshall  T/C 13:35, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete and then redirect per hkr. No sources are provided in this article other than the party's own website. Furthermore, no evidence has been provided that this party is competing in any elections (or, for that matter, that it has intentionally rejected electoral politics). --Metropolitan90 (talk) 22:01, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Most minor parties never run a candidate and base on this person opinion, all of them should be deleted from Wikipedia. However, they do in fact have a standing here. Most minor parties only run a handful or less of candidates, including the SPUSA. Again, based on this strawman, should SPUSA also be deleted? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.91.148.253 (talk) 09:35, 28 October 2010
 * Well, I would say that never running a candidate for office is often a good sign that a party is non-notable and quite possibly should not have a Wikipedia article. (A party that intentionally refuses to participate in electoral politics may be notable if it otherwise meets the general notability guidelines. But that's not the same thing as a party that never manages to find someone willing to run or never manages to collect enough signatures to get on the ballot anywhere.) Running a handful of candidates is a sign that the party is at least somewhat active; the Socialist Party USA does meet that standard. The SPUSA has also received some news coverage in reliable sources, even in mainstream media -- not much, but enough to be found via Google. By contrast, the party under discussion here not only has no candidates for office, but it also hasn't been shown to have received any coverage in reliable sources for anything else it has done whatsoever. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 19:51, 28 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Redirect.  Per Redfarmer.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:15, 2 November 2010 (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.