Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Citizens Party of the United States


 * 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. (non-admin closure) feminist (talk) 05:30, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Citizens Party of the United States

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Article does not have any real sourcing aside from its own website. There is no evidence that this state party has any elected officers or that it been mentioned in a non-trivial way in reliable sources. Toa Nidhiki05 12:25, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 12:35, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 12:36, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 12:36, 9 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep - Having elected officials is not a requirement. The page has enough information so that it isn't useless. Jon698 13:45, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America1000 15:05, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete., you've been here long enough to know that the fact that the page contains information has no relevance to whether we should keep the page unless that information comes from independent, reliable sources, which is not true of any of the pages cited in the article. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 17:13, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 14:12, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep Jon is correct in pointing out that having elected officials is not a requirement for an article on a political party. The party was cited in this book on the U.S. political scene and in this news article, so there has been some coverage. I think a more vigorous rewrite would help the article. Capt. Milokan (talk) 16:46, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Do either of those sources qualify as significant, non-trivial coverage? I don’t think so. Simply saying an organization exists is not evidence of notability. Toa Nidhiki05 17:03, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I would respectfully disagree with your observation. Capt. Milokan (talk) 20:08, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I would like to note that the party is also discussed in this news article. IntoThinAir (talk) 17:22, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
 * That article is SIGCOV, as is the book cited by Capt. Milokan.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:28, 29 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep - per IAR. I favor the inclusion of all articles about political parties of confirmed existence, their youth sections, and their leaders. This is the sort of information that our readers have the right to expect in a truly comprehensive encyclopedia. That no such formal special notability guideline exists should not be allowed to impair our efforts to build and maintain the best encyclopedia possible. Carrite (talk) 19:01, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment I understand you’re saying IAR, but the fact something exists does not make it notable. It needs significant, non-trivial coverage and this doesn’t have that. Non-trivial political parties don’t add value. Toa <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Nidhiki05</i> 19:12, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

<div class="xfd_relist" style="border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 25px;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete. Fails WP:GNG due to lack of WP:SIGCOV in any WP:RS.  -- RoySmith (talk) 03:32, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, B dash (talk) 05:31, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Weak keep per User:Capt. Milokan's sources. Additionally, under their old name of "The New American Independent Party" they had some coverage: 1 2 FOARP (talk) 14:26, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep per sources found by User:Capt. Milokan and my own searches.  In a news archive search I found articles including:
 * Rye man wants third party on ballotsCunningham, Geoff, Jr. McClatchy - Tribune Business News; Washington [Washington]13 Mar 2010. ...--PORTSMOUTH -- Steven Borne is sure that his hitNew hitAmerican hitIndependent hitParty... ...the hitNew hitAmerican hitIndependent hitParty is dedicated to a political platform......go to the voting booth, so he wants to get the hitNew hitAmerican hitIndependent hitParty...
 * Rye man: Write me in for governor Schoenberg, Shira. Concord Monitor; Concord, N.H. [Concord, N.H]21 Oct 2010. ...trying to get the hitNew hitAmerican hitIndependent hitParty on the New Hampshire ballot...
 * Alternative debate has its own issues Ross, Janell. The Tennessean; Nashville, Tenn. [Nashville, Tenn]07 Oct 2008....hitNew hitAmerican hitIndependent hitParty, The Constitution Party's Castle and The...
 * Jay Miller: Minor parties kept off ballot Anonymous. Carlsbad Current - Argus; Carlsbad, N.M. [Carlsbad, N.M]03 July 2010....the hitNew hitAmerican hitIndependent hitParty. And no, a candidate cannot...E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:32, 1 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep as GNG per sources found by User:Capt. Milokan   Lubbad85   (<b style="color:#060">☎</b>) 19:00, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep as regards notability per NORG/GNG via the additional sources found above. Nosebagbear (talk) 21:13, 1 May 2019 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.