Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Constitution Party of Massachusetts


 * 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 Constitution Party (United States). (non-admin closure) --Regards, MrScorch6200 (talk · contribs)  18:12, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Constitution Party of Massachusetts

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Minor affiliate of the Constitution Party (United States) - no evidence that this affiliate is notable, should just be mentioned in parent article. Also more than slightly pov Dougweller (talk) 09:41, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Week keep Even though the article isn't sourced well I get the gut feeling that somehow this article meets the nobility guidelines.--Jeffrd10 (talk) 13:58, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Redirect I have removed the POV, but I doubt that this affiliate has any notability independent of the national party. Redirecting to Constitution Party (United States) seems the best solution. --Randykitty (talk) 14:15, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:16, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:16, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:16, 5 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep - I favor the lowest possible barriers to inclusion of articles on political parties, their leaders, and their youth sections, without regard to size or ideology. We should treat these much the way we treat high schools because this is the sort of material which SHOULD be included in a comprehensive encyclopedia. This is a state-affiliate of confirmed existence, Keep under the policy of WP:IGNOREALLRULES (i.e. Use Common Sense to Improve the Encyclopedia). Carrite (talk) 02:57, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment - American electoral law and the American political system is based upon state level organization. State parties are federated semi-independent affiliates of a single central organization. Carrite (talk) 02:59, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment Let me get this straight - you think that political parties and associated people or organisations should not have to meet WP:GNG? Dougweller (talk) 10:47, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment Many countries have political parties that are organized along state/province/whatever lines. Should we create articles on all of those or only for US parties? Far as I can see, all these state/province/whatever affiliates have the same platform as the national parties, so I would only create an article on the affiliate if there is a special reason to do so, some event that got a lot of news coverage and had a lasting effect, or something like that. Otherwise, everything interesting can be said in the article on the national party. --Randykitty (talk) 10:59, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete and Redirect to the national party. There is no viable claim to notability and no rational reason to keep a state branch of an insignificant third party as a separate stand alone article. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:41, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete - All of the sources deal with the national party and their is no indication the state party meets WP:GNG. --Hirolovesswords (talk) 01:25, 10 February 2014 (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.