Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Florida Whig Party (2nd nomination)


 * 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The result was   Nomination withdrawn. Non-admin closing. --  Blanchardb - Me•MyEars•MyMouth - timed 22:54, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Florida Whig Party
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

This article was deleted two years ago as a non-notable minor party. It has long been traditional on Wikipedia that state parties get redirected to the page of the national party, but my repeated attempts to do so in this case have repeatedly been reverted. There is nothing unique about this state party that is not covered in the national party page. One user has already been blocked temporarily for ownership issues, including ordering people who dare to edit the page to contact a spokesman for the party first. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 18:30, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Weak Keep or Merge Speedy Keep: I opposed the redirect on grounds that I felt this matter should be decided by consensus. I have expressed concerns on the article's talk page, the general scope of which being that while there are multiple, independant, non-trivial mentions in a number of internet publications, I am not satisfied with the sourcing as it currently exists, despite my own efforts to the contrary, and thus cannot wholeheartedly support keeping the article. My concern is primarily with the fact that many of the sources are of questionable reliability, although another editor has helped to temper my concerns by describing the publications in more detail. However, there have also been conflict of interest issues that are deeply concerning, and need to be considered when deciding, although they are certainly not dispositive. While I hope the organization has realized the conflict of interest and will refrain from ownership-type activities in the future, there is certainly an argument for deleting the article on those grounds alone. I would support a merge with Modern Whig Party if that is the consensus, but I can see some good arguments for keeping the article, so I would also weakly support keeping the article. Jo7hs2 (talk) 18:54, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Opinion Change: Nom has withdrawn, sourcing is adaquate if slightly unreliable, and most if not all of the COI influence is no longer part of the article. Jo7hs2 (talk) 20:02, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Keep: I have mentioned a number of reasons on the talk page. There is merit for the COI issues, but the article has been completely redone from its original format so that issue is moot. This article should not be deleted solely because it is an affiliate of a larger organization. This party is unique from the national party because of its novel ballot access scenerio, something that has been distinctly recognized by seven (7) different third-party sources. The fact that seven sources, to include Army Times and Ballot Access News specifically single out this registered state party as notable, is what compels me to recommend keep. In that regard, I have limited this article, as have subsequent editors, to the basic notable elements based on these outside media sources. I will add that while I may not be the most experienced editor on here, the circumstances surrounding this article have completely been unnecessary negative in tone, something that seems to have rubbed off onto the judgment. This article has demonstrated notability, and should be improved and not deleted or merged.Aardvark31 (talk) 19:25, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: Aardvark brings up an important note... The organization may now be part of the Modern Whig Party, but according to what I've read on the subject, it actually joined the Modern Whig Party AFTER being officially recognized in Flordia. That may by itself offer a reason why a merge could be precluded. I don't think it necessarily precludes a merge, but it is something that should be considered. I also don't think that the mere fact that this is a state party should automatically preclude inclusion if the sources are there. Jo7hs2 (talk) 19:33, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
 * It was listed as being a state party on the national party's article until I removed it and redirected all of the state party pages to the main page. It uses the same logo as the national party.  That makes this a state organization which, as I said in the nomination, says nothing unique about the state party which makes it unique from the national party.  Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 19:39, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I think if it was listed on the national party's article as a state party then that was inaccurate. For example, Ballot Access News (a print publication as well as online) does not even mention the Modern Whig Party when covering the issues surrounding the Florida Whig Party. Another source states that the "Modern Whig Party and the Florida Whig Party jointly announce..." While there is an obvious affiliation, the Florida Whig Party in its state registration and in various sources holds itself out as a separate entity. But as was mentioned above, the fact that the Florida Whig Party was registered before the Modern Whig Party lends credence to the fact that this situation and state party is unique. Also, it's not the "Florida Modern Whig Party" as was the incorrect case on the national party site, but Florida Whig Party. Regardless, the Florida Whig Party is notable via multiple sources as a registered state party with ballot access, a candidate and some distinct notability for being a unique party on various levels.Aardvark31 (talk) 19:51, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Query:Who then was a gentleman?, can you provide some AfD/merger/redirect examples for the assertion that state parties are traditionally redirected? I've looked, and we have articles for pretty much (if not all) 50 states for the Republican and Democrat parties. I'm not arguing that is a reason we should keep the article (I'd have to smack myself if I was), I just think it would be helpful to this AfD to have examples. Jo7hs2 (talk) 19:50, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Er. I'm going to have to look.  That really surprises me, as it hasn't been my experience in the past.  Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 19:53, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
 * No problem. I'm looking too, so far I haven't found any, but there are quite a few to check through to see if they went up for AfD or were ever redirected...Jo7hs2 (talk) 19:55, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll look as well to give this a fair shake, although I think the fact that there are some notable elements to what appears to be an independently registered, albeit affiliated, political party makes this a bit moot in light of the sourcing.Aardvark31 (talk) 20:01, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I haven't found anything to suggest that there is such a tradition, despite picking through the histories of various state party articles for the GOP and DNC, as well as numerous third parties. I may have missed something, but so far I just don't see it. Jo7hs2 (talk) 15:21, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I've also picked through the discussions at WP:ORG regarding political parties, and I can find no suggestion of such a tradition there, either, although many redirects wouldn't make it to AfD, and probably then wouldn't become at issue on WP:ORG's discussion page. Jo7hs2 (talk) 15:33, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Keep: It has references and sources that make it independently notable. Article is stripped of any fluff and sticks with the sourcing. Enough said... It's notable so recommend keep.Danprice19 (talk) 02:51, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

-- TexasAndroid (talk) 22:27, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions.  -- TexasAndroid (talk) 22:27, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions.


 * Keep. The issues with this article had to do with ownership and conflict of interest, not notability. Such issues are not valid deletion arguments. The party was on the ballot. --  Blanchardb - Me•MyEars•MyMouth - timed 11:21, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: Other than my concerns about the reliability of the sources provided, I would tend to agree that there is no longer a sourcing issue. Also, my understanding was that the party *will* be on the ballot in 2010, but has not previously been on the ballot. Jo7hs2 (talk) 15:30, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I withdraw this nomination. I know that I have seen many past AfDs were state parties were redirected to national parties, but I cannot find them now. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 19:10, 1 June 2009 (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.