Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/New Party (United States)


 * 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. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:53, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

New Party (United States)

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Fails WP:GNG. A minor, defunct American political party that fielded no candidates of its own, only supported others. Minor kerfuffle over a Obama endorsement only got it into right-wing blogs, not WP:RS Tarc (talk) 01:39, 18 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete as nominator. Tarc (talk) 01:41, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. A cursosry search of Google news shows several possible reliable sources as diverse as the New York Post and Village Voice. &mdash;siro&chi;o 02:04, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep I still remember the coverage of this in news media. A political party or movement does not need to be successful to be notable. Kitfoxxe (talk) 13:16, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:56, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. As above, lack of electoral success is not directly relevant to notability. I'm seeing enough coverage in reliable sources to pass notability. --Mkativerata (talk) 00:59, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Party was the object of an important First Amendment/electoral law Supreme Court case (Timmons v. Twin Cities Area New Party). And its successor party, the Working Families Party in New York is an important player in that state's politics today. --BenA (talk) 13:25, 21 March 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.97.18.83 (talk) 13:17, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep per above - notable party in New York, and was succeeded by the Working Families Party. Daniel Cantor (or Dan Cantor), a co-founder of the party, is also notable and should have his own article. Bearian (talk) 13:43, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep clearly notable. Even if minor, this does not mean a lack of sources. Dew Kane (talk) 03:55, 24 March 2010 (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.