Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Evergreen/Conifer Tea 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   delete. JForget 00:09, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Conifer Tea Party
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Blatant advertisement, in all likelihood started by the organization's founder, and no proof of notability. The article creator, User: Ectpershare, is a SPI, not contributing to any other topics besides this and closely related ones. Also, "Ectper" likely stands for "Evergreen, Colorado TPer (Tea Partier)". Stonemason89 (talk) 01:38, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete, no evidence of notability per WP:GROUP. The references provided discuss the Tea Party movement in general as their subjects, with a passing sentence about or quote from this particular chapter in the context of the national movement without any discussion as to its notability within the movement. (Indeed, two of the sources are the same content, just on different sites, and one source doesn't even mention it at all.) -- Kinu t /c  04:10, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete A political organization with only 300 members does not seem very notable. I don't think we would have articles on local Republican or Democratic Party branches of this size.Borock (talk) 04:28, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
 * weak delete on its own we cant have it (cant every city mentioned), but the content can be merged somewhere in the relevant tea party movement article, so merge(Lihaas (talk) 04:32, 29 August 2010 (UTC));


 * Delete unless there's a list to merge to: Notability is not inherited by subgroups of larger parties/movements, and references given in the article are not "considerable media coverage" as claimed (or, more to the point here, "substantial coverage" per WP:ORG) for this local organization specifically:
 * KDBI: 403 Forbidden when I try it.
 * CNN: in which "Every weekday, CNN focuses on a handful of people in the news." &mdash; Lori Christenson (ECTP founder) was giving a seminar about establishing local branches; she was one of 5 people profiled. The profile was more about organizing Tea Parties than about CTP.  This might barely pass as substantial, depending on one's threshold; I'd say it's not long enough to be substantial.
 * Washington Post: gives Lori Christenson passing mention, local branch name, and quote as one of 600 delegates at the National Tea Party Convention. Not substantial.
 * Seattle Times: duplicate feed of the of WashPost article.
 * Le Figaro: Christenson given passing mention, local branch name, and quote as one of 600 delegates. Not substantial.
 * The other two references do not appear to be intended to show notability: Denver Post article is not about the Tea Party or Christenson; Canyon Courier article is about a candidate that happened to speak at the ECTP montly meeting. --Closeapple (talk) 10:03, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - Political advertising for a small local club. Carrite (talk) 17:02, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:11, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:11, 29 August 2010 (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.