Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/School Choice Party (New York)


 * 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 of the debate was delete. &mdash;  F REAK OF N URxTURE  ( [ TALK ] )  07:12, Feb. 11, 2006

School Choice Party (New York)
Last active in 2004, according to their website; never successfully elected anyone (yet). When they have a base of 100 elected officals, an article would be appropriate. JesseW, the juggling janitor 03:10, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong delete per nom. Royboycrashfan 03:23, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong delete. If your homepage is on GeoCities, I don't think you deserve a Wikipedia article, not even for the free advertising without bandwidth limitations. --Kinu 03:23, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. A party that endorses more than one candidate is notable enough for mine at any stage. I doubt that any Communist Party in the US, UK, Australia or Canada has ever come within a bull's roar of having 100 elected officials yet we don't delete those and rightly so. Capitalistroadster 03:43, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. They are only a single-state party, in a state that has plenty of other parties that we have articles on (Conservative Party of New York, Working Families Party, New York State Right to Life Party for example). Let them get 50,000 votes in this year's gubernatorial election (which gives them an automatic ballot line for the next four years) and then they're notable. Daniel Case 03:46, 5 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. --Ter e nce Ong (恭喜发财) 04:06, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per Capitalistroadster. Ardenn 07:32, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom Prodego  talk  14:32, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
 * delete A search of 1700+ newspapers via Newsbank for the query "School Choice Party" turns up 3 results. Not enough verifiable info on activities for an article.  Lotsofissues 16:45, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete, as it is a verifiable party, but no candidates and that 50,000 votes line... (and a geocities website). feydey 17:58, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete not notable enough. Eusebeus 18:48, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Unimportant an non-notable political party.&#160;—  The KMan  talk  19:03, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete As per nomination and Lotsofoissues, not notable, apparently inactive, and insignificant. --Wingsandsword 09:14, 6 February 2006 (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.