Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Libertarian Party of Mississippi


 * 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. Randykitty (talk) 10:08, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Libertarian Party of Mississippi

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Non-notable state branch of a notable federal party. Toa Nidhiki05 12:36, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics,  and Mississippi. Shellwood (talk) 12:44, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep, it's the official state affiliate of the Libertarian Party. Uoiauai3 (talk) 12:19, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Redirect to List of state parties of the Libertarian Party (United States) Reywas92Talk 13:11, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep as it's one of the officially-recognized, ballot qualified parties in the state. ― Tartan357  Talk 00:32, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep all state Libertarian party articles. PS: This would've been easier if an AfD was open on 'all' state Libertarian & 'all' state Green party articles. GoodDay (talk) 03:22, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep I find 1,000+ hits on newspapers.com with a Libertarian Party search amongst Mississippi newspapers, plus a Google search turns up multiple articles. A quick scan shows SIGCOV articles across multiple years reporting actions of the party in Mississippi (as against reporting on the Party nationally).
 * It is not unreasonable to expect basic searches are carried out before a nomination; passes WP:NONPROFIT. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 11:09, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Relisting comment: Note: "Keep because it's an official party" or similar is not a valid argument because it does not address the reason for deletion (WP:GNG). The article needs examination on these terms. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   19:13, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete or Redirect to List of state parties of the Libertarian Party (United States) or somewhere else. I don't really care, but there needs to multiple in-depth sources that are independent of the subject justify an article and I'm not seeing them. The ones provided by Goldsztanjn are extremely trivial passing mentions and the number of hits on newspapers.com don't help any. In the meantime there's zero reason to have an article for every minor state affiliate of a political party. Especially if they haven't been written about or for that matter have any notable candidates who won elections. It's not like they can't just be mentioned in the main list for state affiliates of the Libertarian Party or some other article related to it either. --Adamant1 (talk) 13:08, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Delete The discussion above is woeful. Simply stating the organisation exists does nothing to demonstrate notability. Notability is not inherited from the notable national party. We need significant coverage in multiple reliable sources about the specific state branch. I'm not seeing that. AusLondonder (talk) 15:54, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Redirect to List of state parties of the Libertarian Party (United States) would be a cheap, reasonable alternative to deletion. SPF121188  (talk this way) (contribs) 16:14, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep, per the sources provided by Goldsztajn above; I am not seeing the "woefulness" of them, nor do they seem to be "extremely trivial passing mentions". jp×g 18:16, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
 * What is woeful is joining a AfD discussion by saying "keep all Libertarian state parties" with no rationale or "Keep, it's the official state affiliate of the Libertarian Party" AusLondonder (talk) 00:29, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Given the blocking of one of the contributors to this discussion for battleground behaviour, I certainly endorse approaches which do not characterise the quality of contributions, but rather convey in civil language policy-based discussion/refutation and the consideration of process. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 11:14, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Well, I didn't say to keep per them, I said to keep per Goldsztajn, who provided a bunch of sources that seem to constitute significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. I mean, maybe they don't -- I would be receptive to someone providing evidence to say they don't -- but to me this seems like the only relevant issue. jp×g 19:46, 3 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep all these. Hyperbolick (talk) 03:16, 3 April 2022 (UTC)′
 * As an editor who has been around here a while I would have assumed you knew AfD is supposed to be about genuine discussion and rational argument, not a simple vote AusLondonder (talk) 12:24, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Reason is self-evident and already addressed by many above, so why be redundant? Hyperbolick (talk) 02:11, 5 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep per Goldsztajn and JPxG. Passes WP:SIGCOV with newly provided sources. Sal2100 (talk) 21:05, 7 April 2022 (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.