Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Justice Party of California


 * 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. borderline WP:G11, too slakr  \ talk / 13:23, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Justice Party of California

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This appears to be WP:SPAM masquerading as an article about a state wide branch of an insignificant political party. No sources WP:RS are cited. Article fails to establish notability WP:N per WP:GNG and WP:ORG. Article was previously tagged for no references, advert and notability. It was also tagged PROD. Article's creator, an apparent WP:SPA, removed PROD and all maintenance tags without explanation. AFAIK political parties do not enjoy presumptive notability. Am I missing something here? Ad Orientem (talk) 18:47, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.  Jinkinson   talk to me  19:27, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions.  Jinkinson   talk to me  19:27, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 21:56, 31 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment. Compare it to Libertarian Party of California, in the same category.  There's a list of names in the Libertarian one, but not a platform list like in this Justice one.  Both parties have a webpage and a street address.  The Libertarian's website seems deeper, includes minutes of quarterly meetings of the board over several years at various locations around the state.  This Justice Party seems new:  for people in the "About" section it gives an acting chairman and the national party main person and then calls for volunteers and board members without listing any.  So I would guess that there could be more substantive coverage available about the Libertarian one than for this one.  But the Libertarian one doesn't have any more substantial coverage in its article. -- do  ncr  am  19:55, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Just took a look at the Libertarian Party of California and it's a mess. I am surprised that one got by without anyone so much as blinking for as long as it has. There might be enough there to salavage and merge into the article on the national party though, which is indisputably notable. But all of that is WP:OTHERSTUFF. This one is just bald faced advertising for an insignificant branch of an insignificant minor party. It needs to go. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:16, 8 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northamerica1000(talk) 11:26, 9 February 2014 (UTC)




 * Keep, tentatively, with some tagging to call for development and sources. Compare also to Constitution Party of California, which has almost no California-specific information, indeed is almost identical to Constitution Party of Alaska, Constitution Party of Alabama, etc.  I see that editor Ad Orientum has tagged and initiated a merger for the Libertarian Party of California page, but it seems that there are other mass-produced state party pages which perhaps should be addressed, and it seems unfair to focus upon just the Justice Party of California one.  There is in fact some info -- name of acting state chairman -- for this one, the article could be developed.  Perhaps an RFC about all of them? -- do  ncr  am  13:31, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Strongly disagree This seems to be an OTHERSTUFF argument. The inferiority of other articles is not an argument for keeping this one. There is nothing remotely notable here and there are no sources. If we are going to start down the road you are proposing, we may as well just chuck WP:N altogether. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:13, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Ad Orientem, i think you and I are not as far apart as you assume. I see you opened Articles for deletion/Constitution Party of Alabama about Alabama and the many other state articles of the Constitution Party.  I had suggested an RFC, you choose to do it by a multiple-article AFD, that is pretty much the same -- you don't seem to "strongly disagree" with me about having a review of the state party pages.  I tend to think an RFC would have been better, less confrontational, less selective/targeting, more educational to the involved editors and tending towards better development of wikipedia, but you have opened it as an AFD, and I'll comment there sometime later.
 * About your "strongly disagreeing" with my Keep vote here, that is where i stand. I am not sure that just because you can apply a label, wp:OTHERSTUFF, that my argument is wrong.  Generically pointing to other sucky articles in Wikipedia that are unrelated is subject to OTHERSTUFF-based dismissal. But I didn't point to generic other articles, I pointed to the finite group of U.S. state party articles, which could be reviewed and considered.  It does seem random and unfair to address just one, and, though you may disagree, I think it is fair to argue Keep for one randomly selected, conditional upon there being some RFC or other review of the group of articles.  Which could lead to some good discussion, education of interested editors in what is a reasonable notability standard for state party articles.  Your starting a multiple-article AFD about the Constitution party ones only is not quite as good as a cooperative RFC discussion about what the standard should be.  So anyhow, I don't think i was using a "bad" OTHERSTUFF argument;  I think I was making a legitimate, positive, OTHERSTUFF-related argument.  Perhaps the OTHERSTUFF essay ought to be refined to make some distinctions.  I have read it before but have not studied it just now.
 * respectfully, -- do ncr  am  20:28, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I have to admit, if I had known what a pain in the @$$ the bundled AfD was going to be, I would have gone to RfC first. From what I gather the things never quite load properly. In any event someone seems to have fixed it so it is now in the AfD queue. But FWIW I did tag it RfC last night. So hopefully we will get some input. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:29, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
 * About


 * Delete Put simply, there is no notability in the state branch of a minor party. There's nothing to talk about but the platform, and that's in the main article about the party. I'd never suggest deleting a main article of even the smallest real party--that's one place we should be inclusive. But the single article is enough.  DGG ( talk ) 16:26, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep Per Doncram Jeremy112233 (talk) 03:14, 12 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.