Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Libertarian Party of South Dakota


 * 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 keep. Randykitty (talk) 10:04, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Libertarian Party of South Dakota

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

Non-notable state branch of a notable federal party. Toa Nidhiki05 12:38, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics,  and South Dakota. Shellwood (talk) 12:45, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Redirect to List of state parties of the Libertarian Party (United States) Reywas92Talk 13:11, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep It is one of just three recognized political parties in the state, and one of the most successful LP affiliates (see 2020 United States House of Representatives election in South Dakota, for instance). These articles are in pretty poor shape right now, but can be improved. ― Tartan357  Talk 00:30, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep - We should have articles of all 50 Libertarian state parties. GoodDay (talk) 02:38, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep state branch in existence since 1978, hundreds of hits in South Dakaota newspapers over a 40+ year period, some SIGCOV examples.


 * Necessary to continue to note an evident lack of WP:BEFORE with these nominations. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 09:36, 27 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Delete or Redirect to List of state parties of the Libertarian Party (United States) or somewhere else per Reywas92. I don't really care, but there needs to be multiple in-depth sources that are independent of the subject to justify an article and I'm not seeing them here. Especially with the sources provided by Goldsztajn, which are extremely trivial at best and have nothing to do with the party at worst. In the meantime there's zero reason to have an article for every minor state affiliate of a political party. More so if the party affiliate has not been written about in any kind of detail or for that matter has any notable candidates who have won major elections. --Adamant1 (talk) 13:13, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
 * This comment, copy pasted across three different AfDs, does not reflect the sources above. A five second glance at every single source above shows they discuss the Party *in* South Dakota, stating that they have "nothing to do with the party" is factually incorrect.  Asserting there's zero reason for a state-based article would be correct in the absence of sources.  Others may, but I wouldn't assume that there should be an article about every US state-level Libertarian Party branch, but it's clear in this case there is sufficient reliable sourcing. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 23:56, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Actually the comments are different. Although they are similar because there's only so much to say about references and nominations that are almost exactly the same. As far as the other part of your comment goes, from what I remember the sources are extremely brief stories about "Libertarians" in South Dakota trying to get the party back on the ballot, but then that's not really directly about the Libertarian Party of South Dakota. At least not in any significant, notable, direct way that matters. You could spin the wheel and choose any random party in any random state and there would be local news stories about them trying to get on the ballot. What party doesn't to get on the ballot? That's literally what they do. Obviously there should be more then that for a party to be notable. Or at least coverage of it should be more then a paragraph byline from a local news source about some lady filing papers at her state election office or whatever. --Adamant1 (talk) 01:31, 31 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   19:18, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep As noted above, sources exist of sufficient quantity and depth to indicate this passes WP:GNG. -- Jayron 32 15:08, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Keep, plenty of WP:SIGCOV in the refs provided by Goldsztajn.Jacona (talk) 01:02, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete In no conceivable way can the sources provided above be considered significant coverage. They are trivial mentions such as gaining ballot access or opening a local branch in a small city of less than 15,000 people. They do not discuss the party in any depth. Notability is not inherited from the notable national party or automatic because they appeared on a ballot. AusLondonder (talk) 15:36, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
 * The first sourced article is from Associated Press, it's four columns in a newspaper, around 400-500 words. The entire piece is about the Party in South Dakota. The second is two columns, about 300-400 about the party's state (ie South Dakota) convention. The third is six columns, 300-400 words about a court ruling on ballot status in South Dakota. The fourth is one column, around 300 words, dealing with creating a local branch, reporting in a statewide newspaper.  The fifth, four columns, 400-500 words, discussing that the Libertarian Party will be the only opposition in a number of state wide races.  The sixth is a front page article, below the fold, probably 500 words, which deals with South Dakota electoral politics in general, but foregrounds the Libertarians. The topic (South Dakota Libertarian Party) is addressed in detail, no original research is required to extract information relevant to the article; ipso facto, SIGCOV. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 10:34, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep all these. Hyperbolick (talk) 03:14, 3 April 2022 (UTC)′
 * Strong Delete No coverage and no references and only 2500 people in it. It is miniscule and by definition non-notable.   scope_creep Talk  10:46, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
 * There are literally six sources listed above? Why did you say no coverage and no references?  There are clearly both.  -- Jayron 32 12:43, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:SIGCOV identified above. The deletes denying there are sources are basically making WP:IDONTLIKEIT arguments. gidonb (talk) 22:35, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep per sources listed by Goldsztajn. Passes WP:SIGCOV. Sal2100 (talk) 20:43, 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.