Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/New Union Party (2nd nomination)


 * 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) Jack Frost (talk) 02:51, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

New Union Party
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Incredibly minor political party that never elected anybody to any office. Among the sources listed since this article was recreated are from other Marxist/socialist parties (not necessarily the most scholarly or reliable sources), a brief listing in a book of literally every political party in existence in the US, inclusion of letters in a library of obscure Marxist parties, and the obituary of the founder that doesn't even mention the party at all. Simply put, this does not appear to meet WP:ORGCRIT (significant non-trivial coverage in multiple independent, reliable secondary sources.). None of these sources establish notability, and all mentions of this party are trivial. Like many minor parties, was of no importance when it existed or now, so the previous situation, where the article was redirected to De Leonism, is the clear solution here. Toa Nidhiki05 23:43, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 23:53, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 23:54, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 23:54, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Comment: The cited article on Miller states that he was a founder of the New Unionists. Kablammo (talk) 11:51, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep (recreator) What is "incredibly minor" about it? Let's keep the hyperbole at a minimum, shall we? Wikipedia examines the article and its sources, not one editor's perceived "importance" (to use the wording of the nominator). This nomination sounds a lot like WP:IDONTLIKEIT. To address the question of notability: the SLP source is independent of the NUP, it goes into detail the situation in which the group entered the SLP and then left. The Blevins source is substantial (covering two pages) and certainly independent. So there are at least two independent, non-trivial sources required per WP:GNG. The published obituaries of two leading members (there are two in the article) also covered the activities of the party in a significant amount of detail, especially the Miller obituary. Electing a candidate to office is often a secondary goal of many left-wing political groups. The SLP and groups in that tradition placed a high premium on organizing workers in the workplace itself. Lastly, if you could see the article, which was deleted last August, and compare it to this, you would notice that there is far more sourced content than what previously existed. The party's newspaper seems to have been digitized and, if I can get access to it, I would be able to add more detail on their activities.--User:Namiba 15:33, 8 May 2020 (UTC)


 * American political history is under told. This should be kept Generaluser11 (talk) 18:09, 8 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep, for a party on the U.S. left in the 1980s, pulling thousands of votes in a single district isn't all that bad. Article has potential for improvement. http://www.slp.org/pdf/statements/nup.pdf has more detail on the split with SLP, from SLP perspective. An article on NUP, https://books.google.com/books?id=xlIMANRajC0C, p. 117 --Soman (talk) 20:54, 8 May 2020 (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.