Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/California Green Party Archives


 * 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. Kurykh (talk) 01:02, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

California Green Party Archives

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I did a pretty extensive search and I couldn't find any sources to indicate any WP:Notability. Alsee (talk) 20:27, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:41, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:41, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:41, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:41, 1 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Merge into California Green Party – Content should be kept.  J 947  22:34, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the Deletion alerts! at WikiProject Green Politics.  J 947  22:37, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Check out the Hoover Institution Collection; http://www.oac.cdlib.org/findaid/ark:/13030/c84b33pj/?query=California+Green+Arch — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hank chapot (talk • contribs) 01:48, 2 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep - notable on its own for its extensive collection. Me-123567-Me (talk) 03:05, 2 March 2017 (UTC) Merge into Green Party of California per . Me-123567-Me (talk) 17:46, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
 * What notability guideline does that satisfy?  J 947  04:26, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
 * WP:NTEMP. Me-123567-Me (talk) 17:32, 2 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete As clearly failing WP:ORGDEPTH and WP:BASIC. I recommend discounting the contribution from who has shown a failure to understand basic notability policies as evidenced at the Articles for deletion/Lavender Greens. AusLondonder (talk) 06:53, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
 * You're not acting in good faith. No attacking other editors. Be civil. Me-123567-Me (talk) 17:27, 2 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Articles for deletion is not a war zone! Me-123567-Me (talk) 17:51, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Apologies if I caused offence. That wasn't my intention. AusLondonder (talk) 07:40, 3 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete - A library archive may support the notability of the subject (ie Green Party) but is not usually notable in itself. A subject cannot inherit notability. On its own, this archive in the Hoover Institute clocks in at 19 linear feet--not exceptional by archive standards; I don't see any standalone references that talk specifically about the archive. Does not meet basic notability standards.Glendoremus (talk) 18:01, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete There are notable archives in the world. This is not among them.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:40, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete - there's no sources outside of its internal universe. Bearian (talk) 20:05, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment I would encourage the delete !vote to consider the possibility of changing their !votes to a redirect or a merge  J  947  02:27, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
 * How would a merge or redirect help? Any search for California Green Party will go to the same place. "There's no there, there," famously said Alice B. Toklas of Oakland, California. Bearian (talk) 02:20, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't see this getting merged as a section. Green Party of California already this in the external links section, and three sentences on the archives would become 20% of that article.
 * We don't have redirects for "unlikely search terms", and page view statistics literally craps out with an error message because it was viewed exactly zero times in a year and a half. That's an "unlikely search term". That's also one hell of a fluke - even a completely bogus page tends to pick up a few page views just from people clicking the "random page" button. Alsee (talk) 00:12, 9 March 2017 (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.