Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Centrist 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 keep. John254 00:38, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Centrist Party

 * ( [ delete] ) – (Articles for deletion/Centrist Party) (View log)

This entry in my mind should be deleted because as mentioned in its talk page, they have not been active since 2006 and one member -- the founder -- claims that it won't be back up until 2010. In 2010, if they do something notable, then this entry should be revived. But for now, it is not notable. This looks like a group comprised of the founder and nobody else, at least in this point of time. Also, they claim "a member of the Centrist Party" ran for Congress in 2004, but this is completely dubious because the party claims to have been founded in 2006.

The following is also reposted in my vote. But as it may not be clear as to whether or not I, as the nominator, can also vote, I want to add my additional justifications and researched rationale for proposing that this article be deleted.

All coverage was within a couple-month timeframe back in 2006. All of it focused on the founder's efforts. There is been no coverage since 2006. It appears that the efforts foundered and their has not been one item of evidence indicating any members and certainly no coverage to demonstrate notability since 2006. All that has existed of this group is a Web site that lists no members and does not publicize news of the party. danprice19 (talk) 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I want to go on the record as stating that I am willing to go along with a suggestion of deleting this stand-alone entry and instead merging the Centrist Party into a "list of" or some comparable location. In that way, if they do become notable in 2010 as the founder, and still only verifiable member, purports, then this entry would be notable. But as it stands now, this is a party of one man. To further substantiate my claim that this entry should be deleted, take a look at the 2006 articles cited on the entry. The only member of the party quoted, named or refereced as a member is the founder. Not one other person is referenced anywhere as an official member. In short, this is the 2006 efforts of one guy who attempted to start a party but never gained any members, and in fact has not demonstrated any notable or ascertainable activity since August 2006.danprice19 (talk) 31 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep Evidence of coverage and notability. Okay for a stub. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:09, 30 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete All coverage was within a couple-month timeframe back in 2006. All of it focused on the founder's efforts. There is been no coverage since 2006. It appears that the efforts foundered and their has not been one item of evidence indicating any members and certainly no coverage to demonstrate notability since 2006. All that has existed of this group is a Web site that lists no members and does not publicize news of the party. danprice19 (talk) 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * NEVER GOT LISTED UNTIL TODAY: JAN. 2


 * Weak keep or merge. Notability, once acquired through coverage, is not lost. That said, the coverage is really poor for a party with national ambitions: it is limited to a very few articles in local or college papers in which the founder speaks grandly of the newly founded party's goals. A merger into a "list of minor centrist parties in the United States" or some such would probably be best, if there is an appropriate merge target.  Sandstein   07:39, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - Notability is never lost. Period. I think notability was established however weakly. This is a minor party, didn't make much waves, and came to nothing and apparently died. Yet encyclopedias are full of dead things that came to nothing. A historian in a hundred years, will go to the Wikipedia category link for minor political parties of the USA of the early 21st century (or do a semantic search or think about it in his neural interface :) and will find out this existed. We owe our great-grandchildren this. Thanks! --Cerejota (talk) 12:48, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong keep notablity and the presence of realiable, verifiablesources is definitely extant withi the realm of thi sa rticle. Wikipedias purpose is NOT to suppress nacsent political movements but to report on anything that is notabele that and that contains verifiabl sources in roder to fulfill this commitment we canno t hack t odeath political parties regardless of our views on the niceosity of their websties or the levelof success that they have achied (a subjective benchmark as we lal realize). keeping this article because deleting it because it is "no longer" ntoable (as if such an abominance is even POSSIBLE!) would not be in strong compliance with WP:VWP:NWP:RS&WP:AFDSmith Jones (talk) 16:39, 2 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment: the party no longer exisiting in a meaningful way is a weak argument for deletion. For example, the Whig party is long dead, but it has an article for its historical significance. Notability doesn't have to be current for it to be worth keeping.  bahamut0013  words deeds   17:03, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * concurent i agreee this AFD is obscene and it sbased on a ortured reinterpretizaiton of the policies and guidelignes.


 * 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.