Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/American Solidarity 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   no consensus. Seraphimblade Talk to me 21:38, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

American Solidarity Party

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Article for a political party that only exists on its website. Entire article sourced to "party's" website and Facebook page. Search finds no RS referring to party. LavaBaron (talk) 00:57, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete I cannot find any secondary sources pertaining to this political party, failing WP:ORG. The only sources are either Facebook, which fails the policy on self-published sources, or a news post on a blog. --   LuK3      (Talk)   03:42, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete no evidence in acceptable sources that this exists. Facebook accounts and its own website are not independent secondary sources. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 04:52, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep  According to secondary sources on the web , this party used to be named "Christian Democratic Party" (or "Christian Democratic Party USA").  Under that name, it has existed since 2011 or 2012.  Counting the sources that refer to this party by its old name as well as those that use the new name, I find several references on the web:        (the last of these links comes from the ISI magazine, which is certainly a reputable source).  There is also evidence that this party has actual activity on the human level, not just the virtual level .  I certainly agree that this article needs neutral and reliable sources, but the ASP itself appears to be real and sufficiently notable for a Wikipedia article. &mdash; Lawrence King ( talk ) 04:59, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Weak keep They have some kind of notability in Catholic and Orthodox publications, but not totally certain that's enough. And if not keep maybe a redirect to List of Christian democratic parties. (For possible recreation if they grow in notability or membership.)--T. Anthony (talk) 12:10, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Provisional keep The party might be getting more attention due to dissatisfaction with the main candidates and its having an actual Presidential nominee as well as state chapters it seems. I'm calling this "Provisional keep" because if it gets no more attention by October I'd favor revisiting it. (I know "Wikipedia is not a crystal ball" but this is somewhat time-sensitive not a "keep it forever in case" statement.)--T. Anthony (talk) 16:02, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:19, 25 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:ORG. I went through all of the sources linked and they're either blogs, passing mentions, or primary sources (i.e., the interview for Christian Democracy Magazine). I haven't found other more substantial sources and even piecing together information from the few sources that exist, there isn't enough independent coverage to write a neutral article.  —PermStrump  ( talk )  04:56, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep per sources presented by Lawrence King. Passes WP:GNG.--TM 10:49, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep per sources listed by Lawrence King. -- Dhalsim2 16:05, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America1000 10:26, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America1000 10:26, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America1000 10:26, 26 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete -- badly sourced and poorly written stub on a fringe party that from all appearances has never been on a ballot or even in the news. Bearian (talk) 21:23, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
 *  Delete unless  a merge target can be found. this Party flickered to life in 2011/2 as written up here: on Patheos by Mark P. Shea. It is the only good source my searches located.  Topic certainly fails the usual test for political parties, that is, winning elections.  So it would have to pass WP:GNG the old fashioned way, i.e., lots of reliable, secondary sourcing.  It doesn't.  A student online journal published by Intercollegiate Studies Institute, the best of the remaining sources proffered by Lawrence King, and it is just not enough.  And yet, this Party did exist.  If there is an appropriate merger target, merging a single sentence about this Party into it might be the best solution. E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:35, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Maybe an article like Christian democracy in the United States could be made as there might be enough people in US history who had some interest in it to make an article doable. And then we could mention this in that.--T. Anthony (talk) 16:09, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Does Wikipedia already have an article that contains a list of minor parties in the USA, including parties that don't have their own articles and parties that no longer exist? List of political parties in the United States seems to include only parties with articles about them, and therefore nothing descriptive is included.  If there is an article that lists parties and gives a one or two sentence description of each, that would seem ideal.  (I'm thinking analogously to the many articles on characters in fiction works (e.g., this, this,  this.)  While T. Anthony's idea of an article on "Christian democracy in the United States" has merits, minor parties exist within the context of the U.S. party system -- much as minor characters in Hamlet exist within the context of Hamlet.  So if this were to be reduced to a brief blurb, the location of that blurb would make the most sense in an article on such parties. &mdash; Lawrence King ( talk ) 19:51, 28 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete As sources found are mostly not reliable AusLondonder (talk) 09:46, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep A reference that has not been mentioned here yet, from the First Things journal, gives in depth coverage of the American Solidarity Party Bmbaker88 (talk) 17:23, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep; agreed with T Anthony. This party has grown quickly even since the beginning of this discussion, including the article in First Things mentioned by the previous commenter. Academic Challenger (talk) 19:56, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep Per sources provided by Lawrence King and in recognition of a seemingly growing interest. Ghym (talk) 21:13, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.143.205.206 (talk) 21:37, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete As others have said, there are no reliable, third-party sources establishing notability. If adequate notability can be established at a later date, the article can be recreated, but it is not there yet. TechBear  &#124; Talk &#124; Contributions 23:23, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment I agree that Lawrence King's posted sources are not sufficient for GNG or ORG. I also agree they are passing mentions, or blogs that are not reliable sources, or connected to this topic, and therefore it lacks independent coverage. I think this article on Wikipedia is a case of WP:TOOSOON. This organization is headed in the right direction for the decade of the 2010s by establishing a social media presence and a presence on the web. Unfortunately it is not noteworthy at this time. My Ivote (see above) is still the same. Also, this party actually appears to be one of many third choice parties - - but it has not distinguished itself in the press as yet. Steve Quinn (talk) 04:51, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I wonder if the result of this debate may depend on how long it remains open. The most significant and reliable secondary source for the ASP just appeared today: the article in First Things cited by Bmbaker88 and Academic Challenger above.  As T. Anthony reminds us, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, but it's hard not to wonder if the fact that, for the first time in four decades the Republicans have failed to nominate a soi-disant social conservative might lead to increased interest in a social-conservative minor party.  So on the one hand, if the ASP gets a bunch of coverage in the next couple weeks, it would seem silly to delete this page and then re-create it a few days later.  On the other hand, I have searched for information about its presidential and vice-presidential nominees and have found nothing other than the First Things article, so as of this precise instant I would agree with Steve Quinn that the ASP doesn't have much better sources than other miniscule parties that don't have Wikipedia articles.  My vote is still Keep, since I think this is a borderline case and I tend to be an inclusionist, but I think in a couple weeks we will have a better sense of whether this is the "new big thing" or not. &mdash; Lawrence King ( talk ) 05:48, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I think Maturen is a convert, or revert, to Catholicism who maybe the one once mentioned as part of Romney's efforts for Michigan. He also looks to be the same, to my surprise, person as Mike Maturen the magician. Not sure what to make of that. Anyway this might be early indeed. The lack of enthusiasm for Trump among church-going Catholics, according to Pew I think, made me interested or aided interest.--T. Anthony (talk) 11:26, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, &mdash; Music1201  talk  15:55, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Changing my iVote to keep the new essay inFirst Things kicks it over the goal posts.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:37, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Plus it is getting a little fresh attention . The most useful thing an editor who thinks this should be kept would be to update and source the article.


 * Note to closing editor As per WP:RAPID, I see an argument for keeping this as no consensus, and revisiting on, say, 9 November.  E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:30, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep - I believe that all legitimate political parties of confirmed existence, as well as biographies of their top leaders and articles about their youth sections, should be automatically kept without regards to size or ideology. This is the sort of information that our readers have every right to expect in a comprehensive encyclopedia. I realize that going IAR about such things sometimes doesn't carry much weight with closers, but it should. Carrite (talk) 18:15, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep per an article published in The Madera Tribune, a newspaper with no religious or political affiliation of any sort. -- 1:57, 7 August 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:C50F:780:4DBB:3155:1435:CCB0 (talk)
 * Delete -- The Madera Tribune is hardly a notable source. Secondary sources are still lacking to establish notability to meet GNG. Not yet sufficient for an encyclopedia article. K.e.coffman (talk) 08:35, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree that we need a greater number of reliable sources. However, secondary sources are not generally available for recent news.  For example, the article Democratic Party (United States) asserts that Hillary Clinton is this party's 2016 nominee; the sources is the Huffington Post.  The article 2016 Democratic National Convention is almost entirely sourced from newspapers, TV news sites, and online news sites -- because this convention is simply too recent to have appeared in any secondary sources.  That's why the Encyclopedia Britannica has no article on the 2016 American election.  However, for better or worse, Wikipedia does have articles about ongoing elections, and therefore these articles need to use primary sources -- which is permissible per WP:PRIMARY, as long as they are used properly. &mdash; Lawrence King ( talk ) 19:15, 7 August 2016 (UTC)


 * sources Aleteia (Catholic news) covers it:, , , as does The American Conservative, albeit with the advice not to vote for it, , and Patheos continues to cover it.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:35, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment I don't know enough about the US political system to know where to look, but surely a legitimate party must be registered somewhere, if not with the body that oversees elections, then at least as a legally registered entity of somekind? That would then be enough to justify an article. Derek Andrews (talk) 10:48, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
 * It would be simpler if it worked that way! But here are the problems.  (1) Each U.S. state has its own political party registration system.  Many third-parties are registered in some states and not others (for example, the Conservative Party of New York State is registered in only one state, but nonetheless managed to elect a U.S. senator in 1970).  (2)  Some states distinguish between being registered for the ballot (which means that the party's nominees will be printed on each voter's ballot) and being registered as an official write-in option (which means that the nominees won't be printed on the ballot, but if voters write in the names, they will be officially counted).  See for example, Green Party of the United States: this party is on the ballot in South Carolina, is an official write-in in North Carolina, and isn't registered in Wyoming at all.  Write-ins rarely win -- yet Strom Thurmond was elected to the U.S. Senate as a write-in in 1954.  (3)  In many states, the deadline to register a party is still in the future; thus the Green Party is trying to register for the Wyoming ballot in time for November's election.  According to the Madera Tribune article, the ASP cannot collect enough signatures to be on the California ballot, but it expects to be able to register as an official write-in option.  I've added info to the article clarifying these points.  In one of the Aleteia sources, Maturen states, “As of right now, it looks as though we will actually be on the ballot in a handful of states, and write-ins in most of the rest.”  However, that's a bold claim which I don't think should be in the article unless there is evidence that this goal is achievable. &mdash; Lawrence King ( talk ) 19:07, 8 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep. when in doubt, political parties are one of the topics I think we should be inclusive about, in any country.  DGG ( talk ) 17:10, 8 August 2016 (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.