Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Richmond Progressive Alliance


 * 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)  NNADI GOOD LUCK  ( Talk &#124; Contribs ) 04:10, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Richmond Progressive Alliance

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Clear fail of WP:GNG as properly interpreted per WP:ORGDEPTH. Although not directly on point, I do feel the spirit behind WP:NPOL speaks to this issue. It's a local political party people. I doubt a local party in major city would be notable per WP:NORG; and the likelihood goes down since Richmond is a suburb. Although Richmond is fairly large, it's a suburb, and like it or not, the impact of a suburb as an individual community is diluted by its association with the major city. John from Idegon (talk) 23:43, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 00:25, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 00:25, 31 December 2019 (UTC)


 * leaning delete I'm having some trouble with this article due to significant grammatical and usage faults, and it isn't at all clear in any given section as to whether the text is germane to the article's subject. It is tempting to interpret it as heavily padded with irrelevancies and puffery. That said, the only coverage that comes close to a claim to real, non-local notability is the Jacobin article, and given that it's an interview with an associate of the group, its testimony is borderline at best. Mangoe (talk) 06:38, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep local sources are reliable sources and there is significant coverage about this organization including two books written about it. Bad grammar isn't a reason for delete.Ndołkah☆ (talk) 08:02, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep . Plenty of sources, not all local. Electing representatives makes it much more significant.  Rathfelder (talk) 11:33, 1 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Whether or not local sources may be considered reliable, they are not as a rule sufficient to establish notability, and furthermore, once again we are faced with the reality newspapers with national reputation are nonetheless local sources when it comes to the region in which they are established. The SF Chronicle is local to the market and is insufficient to to establish notability on its own. Mangoe (talk) 17:26, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Mango that's not true per WP:NPOSSIBLE local sources are sufficient to establish notability.Ndołkah☆ (talk) 04:52, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
 * No, that's not true. We have had many cases where, because the archives of some purely local paper were available, tons of trivial articles were created: the worst case I remember was a run of every little bump in the Gettysburg battlefield, made possible because some library digitized the local paper from the era. It's normal for local media to record in detail the actions of every local governmental body, but as a rule those acts are unimportant in any larger picture and should not be memorialized simply because we can copy that coverage. WP:NOTPAPER isn't really true anyway, but in any case it's not a justification for indiscriminate copying of routine material. Mangoe (talk) 12:43, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
 * That argument is weak and doesn't add up, WP:NPOSSIBLE makes it clear that suitable sources are what matters not their localness. Also many of the sources are not from Richmond but from farther away in San Francisco, San Jose, and Oakland anyways. This article is not about tiny tidbits of a battlefield it is about a notable city council at large with reliable sources about it.Ndołkah☆ (talk) 21:21, 2 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep . A member has become mayor (only Green Party mayor in the United States). They have had impacts on the development in the region, and they have also had notable influence outside Richmond including forming the California Political Alliance. Here are just a few of the national sources mentioning them in detail:
 * https://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/05/us/richmond-calif-savors-role-as-soda-tax-battleground.html?mtrref=www.google.com&gwh=C3D5B8AD56FCB4084AC28802D91D661C&gwt=pay&assetType=REGIWALL
 * https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/oct/09/richmond-chevron-california-city-polluter-fossil-fuel
 * https://grist.org/climate-energy/a-year-after-a-refinery-explosion-richmond-cali-is-fighting-back/
 * https://www.mercurynews.com/2016/08/26/richmond-residents-stunned-by-cals-cancellation-of-global-campus-project/
 * https://www.csmonitor.com/Books/Book-Reviews/2017/0428/Refinery-Town-tells-the-story-of-a-city-fighting-for-its-own-soul — Preceding unsigned comment added by Naddruf (talk • contribs) 04:50, 6 January 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.