Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Forward 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 no consensus. There is clearly enough RS to cover this topic in some form, whether in Andrew Yang's article or in a standalone article, so deletion is not a possible result here. WP:NOTINHERITED is ultimately a subjective criterion, and one for which I have not found a rough consensus in either direction, merge or keep. Discussion of a potential merger can continue on the talk page. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:37, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Forward Party

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Stub article of currently negligible interest. Can be concisely described in its existing section within the article Andrew Yang SecretName101 (talk) 21:59, 5 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. SecretName101 (talk) 21:59, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. SecretName101 (talk) 21:59, 5 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Strong keep Founding of an organization, with the potential to become a third party, that receives this much media attention: NPR, NYT, CNN, CBS and many more is notable. The founder of the party, Yang, who was well-known as a Democrat, leaving the Democratic, and founding this party, is also an unusual occurrence, but makes this that much notable. Well sourced article and it's certainly not a stub. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pennsylvania2   (talk • contribs) 23:40, 5 October 2021  (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not the news. Not everything that becomes a news story (especially in today's 24/7 news cycle) is independently notable enough to warrant its own article. And the "potential to become a third party" is not grounds for an article. SecretName101 (talk) 00:07, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
 * The "potential to become a third party" is neither grounds for an article nor grounds to delete the article. This political organization is notable enough to warrant an article even if it does not develop into a true third party. A very similar situation is the Movement for a People’s Party - which also has its own Wikipedia article. Mt.FijiBoiz (talk) 00:20, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Movement for a People’s Party appears to also have negligible notability, and might warrant deletion as well. And explain to me how the Forward Party is "notable enough"? SecretName101 (talk) 05:21, 6 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Merge to Andrew_Yang. Too soon to call this a legitimate party or even a "movement", and astonishing that people like Yang are still dumb enough to think that creating a third party in a first past the post system will magically solve partisanship. No notability – at this point – outside of Yang himself here, though it could be converted to be an article on his book Forward: Notes on the Future of Our Democracy instead. Reywas92Talk 00:10, 6 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Strong keep The founding of this political organization has received coverage from notable and credible sources such as NPR, NYT, CNN, CBS and many other - this establishes enough notability for the org to have a Wikipedia article. Personal views on Yang's intelligence or the creation of third parties in the United States should not factor into the decision as others in this discussion have argued. This article is in need of editors to edit and expand it, not to delete and blank it. Mt.FijiBoiz (talk) 00:17, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, lots of coverage, not-so-coincidentally timed with Yang's book release and tour. Yang, his ideas, and perhaps his book are notable, but not a day-old "party". Reywas92Talk 13:55, 6 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep I don't really see a reason why this article shouldn't exist. The subject has received a decent amount of notable media coverage and the person behind it is a fairly well known figure in U.S. politics today. Editors expectations about whether the subject will actually achieve its goals or not shouldn't factor in to whether the article should exist. Basil the Bat Lord (talk) 01:05, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
 * The person behind it being fairly well known does not justify this being an independent article. Hence, why I believe it suffices for now to simply leave it as a section in Andrew Yang's own article. SecretName101 (talk) 05:16, 6 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep It appears somewhat likely that a viable third party may arise, and merging this directly to Andrew Yang seems to tie it to a person, which it should not. That could ultimately be like wanting to tie MLB to the Abner Doubleday page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.8.138.243 (talk) 02:45, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
 * The above is almost entirely WP:CRYSTALBALL. Curbon7 (talk) 03:24, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Major League Baseball has existed as an organization since 1903, with its antecedents dating back to 1876. The Forward Party has existed for one day so far. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:37, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
 * But, ignoring how long they have existed for, Major League Basebal l and the Forward Party are both notable organizations that represent more than their founder. Merging the Forward Party with Andrew Yang doesn't make any sense, in my opinion. JoeUnexotic (talk) 12:46, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
 * How is the Forward Party notable beyond the 24 hour news cycle? It's not even a registered political party yet and there is no indication that the coverage will be WP:LASTING. Curbon7 (talk) 16:48, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Merge to Andrew Yang for the time being. This organization (which has not yet become a political party) was literally founded today (based on my time zone, at least). It might grow and gain significant support or it might fade into nonexistence and be abandoned before the midterm U.S. elections in 2022. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:29, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Merge to Andrew_Yang. It is possible that this organization may take off; until then it appears that most of the coverage is about the founder, not the organization. --Enos733 (talk) 05:09, 6 October 2021 (UTC)


 * To those citing "media coverage", yes it is receiving media coverage. Because Yang is a notable figure, and this is something he is doing. The party itself has yet to receive independent notability apart from its relation to Yang. SecretName101 (talk) 05:14, 6 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Merge to Andrew_Yang. All the media coverage is about Yang more than the party. It just isn't ready yet. FiddleheadLady (talk) 20:18, 6 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete No clear reason why this is deserving of a Wikipedia page. Only reason this is receiving coverage is the involvement of Yang. The party itself hasn’t endorsed any candidates, so we have no evidence that this party will have any impact deserving of an article. Mannysoloway (talk) 22:01, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Totally wrong. They just endorsed a candidate. Pennsylvania2 (talk) 22:32, 6 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete or Merge This party is in name only and has only existed for a day. wait until it actually gains some traction.BigRed606 (talk) 22:46, 6 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Merge or Delete Right now, 3rd-party coverage is mostly acknowledging that this thing exists, but no one can say what it is, which just isn't enough for an article. Right now, Forward looks more like Kanye West's Birthday Party, which was deleted, in that there's nothing to it but the noteworthy founder. When Forward starts endorsing candidates, or registers as a party, I think that should be revisited. JebtheTree (talk) 23:00, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, the businessman best known for running for President on UBI is equivalent to a crazy rapper, who ran a vanity campaign.Pennsylvania2 (talk) 04:11, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
 * The subjective merits of Andrew Yang and Kanye West aren't the question. The point I make is that the Forward Party, at this moment, is just a one-man band, just as the Birthday Party was - and neither is a registered party. JebtheTree (talk) 21:59, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
 * It's not a "one-man band though. Look at it's organizers. Blair Walshingham and Jeff Kurzon are independently notable. Pennsylvania2 (talk) 04:41, 13 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Strong keep Because Yang is a notable figure in politics, this organization is receiving coverage from notable media outlets. This is a game changer in American politics. Asher Heimermann (talk) 00:34, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you this will be a game changer, but as yet, no game has been changed. No RS says that it's a game changer. It's just a thing Yang has said and started to do. &mdash; JohnFromPinckney (talk / edits) 06:21, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep As stated above, Yang is a notable political figure and a viable third party may actually arise from this, so I see no reason to get rid of the article. YoungstownToast (talk) 00:44, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Invalid reasons for keeping article. Notability is not inherited. And WP:CRYSTALBALL. SecretName101 (talk) 23:40, 10 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Merge: Both of the keeps above me should be disregarded because notability is not inherited. There is no metric besides being a crystal ball in which we can predict how this "party" will succeed or fail in the future. Curbon7 (talk) 01:01, 7 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep: significant media attention and the founding of a third party in the US is significant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:147:C000:DA40:1592:923A:7E9F:B184 (talk) 04:03, 7 October 2021 (UTC)  — 2601:147:C000:DA40:1592:923A:7E9F:B184 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 2601:147:C000:DA40:1592:923A:7E9F:B184 (UTC).
 * Merge to Andrew_Yang per FiddleheadLady, Metropolitan90, Reywas92. Wait until something . &mdash; JohnFromPinckney (talk / edits) 06:21, 7 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Merge or Delete As the political party is not notable. It is a political action committee. Media coverage doesn't mean the party is notable. Ghost finders (talk) 14:17, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Merge to Andrew Yang per WP:INHERITED. The PAC has not generated independent media coverage based on its activities; the announcement has only been covered because Yang is an established political figure. ― Tartan357  Talk 21:27, 7 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep This is an important Wikipedia page to track a promising new political party in America. In order to give third parties a fair chance and let their voices be heard, simple Wikipedia pages describing is an important step to ensuring they are not silenced. I strong recommend this page to be kept. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Special:Contributions/192.236.121.217 (talk) 04:03, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
 * None of the above keep vote is based on policy at all. WIkipedia is not here to right great wrongs. Curbon7 (talk) 03:31, 8 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep In general, I would be interested to hear any arguments for the negative consequences of keeping any existing article--provided that it is about a genuine entity in the world. The Forward Party exists. It is not Andrew Yang.  Why should there NOT be an article about it?  Other than a negligible increase in server costs and an even milder affect on search efficiency, I think you'd be hard-pressed to even make a case for why an article about an actual political entity shouldn't exist.  Obviously there are plenty of reasons to edit or correct an article, and if such errors exist, then by all means correct them. Though he founded it, The Forward Party is NOT Andrew Yang, and it is reasonable to expect the party (and  the article) to grow independently of Andrew Yang. At the very least, I can say it already served a useful purpose, for I myself found it valuable in linking me to the Forward Party's website.  Googling "Forward Party" brought me first to Wikipedia, and I'd have had a harder time trying to find the link by scrolling through Andrew Yang's article.  Additionally, I'd urge everyone to be wary of attempts at censorship. Articles of a political nature are likely to attract attempts at censorship.  Does acknowledging this reality indicate my failure to assume good faith?  Perhaps.  But I speak not of any particular case, but simply of the importance of acknowledging that if anyone were to attempt censorship of a Wikipedia article, this is precisely the sort of article where we should expect to see it. 76.189.243.122 (talk) 01:32, 8 October 2021 (UTC) — 76.189.243.122 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Literally not a word of the above keep !vote is based off of policy. Curbon7 (talk) 16:19, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
 * It undermines Wikipedia's prestige to be having articles on non-notable subjects. Also, if the threshold for article notability is eliminated, Wikipedia will become unmanagable. Every joe shmoe will create a article about their own house's uninteresting history, every mildly successful local realtor would create their own self-promotional article, every carwash would create an article about their business, etc. etc. Wikipedia does not and will not have enough competent editors to keep up with all the low-notability articles that would be created, and, therefore, the accuracy of articles would fall down the toilet. It is already hard enough to keep each and every article from becoming unpatrolled and misleading as it is. SecretName101 (talk) 23:33, 10 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Merge to Andrew Yang, the founder of organisation. Because sources mostly are about the founder, not about the organisation.Brayan ocaner (talk) 18:51, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete - the intro calls it an action committee rather then a political party. GoodDay (talk) 23:06, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete Not independently notable. Any relevant information belongs on Andrew Yang KidAd  •  SPEAK  01:55, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep Party has already endorsed a candidate-Wendy Hamilton- . Lots of media coverage that's not just about Yang and it often revolves around the future of the PARTY.2601:152:C80:F40:4B5:C1E1:43E6:AA0D (talk) 17:17, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I cannot even find a single media source covering that endorsement. That's how non-notable that is. It adds nothing to the party's notability. A (so far) non-consequential endorsement of a single candidate is not a grounds for an article, nor is coverage merely speculating about the future of the party (WP:CRYSTALBALL), which only exists because Yang created the party (if I created the same party and taken the same steps, would it be getting any coverage at this stage, no.) SecretName101 (talk) 23:33, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
 * The lack of coverage of the endorsement is arguably an indicator that the Forward Party was just a 24-hour news cycle item, and not a notable entity. Not notable, no article, right? JebtheTree (talk) 22:14, 12 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep Since this is a PAC that was started by a major former presidential candidate who still has a large following, it shouldn't be judged based on whether it is an official political party yet. It already has notoriety due to its founder, even if it fails or succeeds. At the same time, major news outlines, such as the New York Times in an October 4th article, confirm his attempt to create the Forward Party as an official third party in the United States. -WKHR 21:54, 9 October (UTC)
 * It already has notoriety due to its founder. Incorrect. Notability is not inherited. ― Tartan357  Talk 22:02, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep Heard about this on CNN yesterday. The topic was about the third party, its potential success and its future. Not revolving around Yang, so it's independent.50.210.154.113 (talk) 12:15, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
 * "Potential success" is WP:CRYSTALBALL. And one instance of "independent" coverage does not establish notablity. Hardly an argument for keeping. Also, tried finding CNN videos mentioning it. Only found this one, which clearly only mentions it because of Yang, and pretty much argues it will likely be inconsequential. SecretName101 (talk) 23:26, 10 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep Founding of a third party by a notable figure is quite rare and this has received significant media coverage including beyond Yang. The potential for it to be a "spoiler" has also lead to coverage and controversy beyond Yang. See, , and .2601:152:C80:F40:F19C:B993:E9B6:7032 (talk) 04:08, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
 * This is entirely WP:NOTINHERITED and WP:CRYSTAL. Curbon7 (talk) 05:35, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
 * The controversy regarding the party is absolutely a fair point towards its notability and that goes beyond Yang. Pennsylvania2 (talk) 04:42, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
 * The controversy is regarding the spoiler effect, but that is inherently a crystal ball judgement, as we don't know if this PAC will even be registered as a party. Curbon7 (talk) 05:02, 13 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep Keep this page. It is a brand new topic and will mature with time.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:546:200:4950:BCD2:FC55:E37F:F564 (talk) 02:39, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
 * My cousin's engagement is also a new subject. Does that grant it notability for a Wikipedia article? If a new subject does not have independent notability, it does not warrant an article. SecretName101 (talk) 04:25, 14 October 2021 (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.