Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Social Democratic Party of Pennsylvania


 * 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 delete.  Kurykh  03:27, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Social Democratic Party of Pennsylvania

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

fails notability, provides no independent sources that it even exists, suspect that this is a vanity page T L Miles (talk) 15:35, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - no verifiability, no evidence of notability. I do object, however, to the violation of our assumption of good faith present in the nominator's language (and venomously present in the article's talk page, by the way). Full disclosure: I was a candidate for National Secretary of the SPUSA back in 1977 and am on good terms with the SP here in Milwaukee. -- Orange Mike  |  Talk  17:01, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: I'm sorry I'm violating assumption of good faith: but please note that the person with whom I was conversing has, amongst other things, been editing a real organization's wiki page (Social Democrats USA) to place his friends in charge of it, as well as populating this page and another to make his small # of friends appear to be an actual political party.  I feel, with all due respect, that this fellow has moved well beyond any assumption of good faith. I too am a member of the SPUSA, (New York City Local: note there is no wiki page for this local: I don't think it's notable) but have no problem with other organizations existing, as long they're not using Wikipedia to pretend to be something they're not.  T L Miles (talk) 18:04, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:V and WP:ORG. This organization at one point had a Web site, which was shut down last year (diff).  The only remaining external link on the page points to a site that does not list this organization as a state affiliate, as claimed in the article -- only a contact person is listed in Pennsylvania (link).  From all I can tell, the Social Democratic Party of Pennsylvania is defunct, shut down shortly after it was created, without accomplishing anything notable in couple of months it existed. -David Schaich Talk/Cont 22:09, 14 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: If the three here went to the older Social Democrats, USA website and called the phone numbers you'll find they no longer rings at that office. In fact the Washington, D.C. office is not there anymore.

The SDPPA was never closed and is not cited as being such above.

Groups are not reqired to give out membership information unless required by state law.

The lack of "good faith" is in personal attacks at Wikipedia taken by several members of the Socialist Party of the United States of America, due to the 2007 split within the party, to try and clear any association or dogma that isn't secular enough for them to attempt erasing. Socialist Party USA members have no business editing Social Democrats, USA as it is a conflict of interest.

Read Statues 3.5 ASSOCIATED ORGANISATIONS of the SI members to see we don't have to be listed, not required, to be a member. Also note that the page quoted in past personal attacks was dated in 2000 and does not reflect current membership within the SI.

Since under SI "3.5 Associated" we are in formal reorgaization and have not voted nor are required to list official "affiliates," but only those who are respective state contact "organizers."

Social Democrats, USA has an elected Officer who is running party business and it is Gabe Ross even if no one here likes this fact. Internal party business is not anyone's concern here except to those who are due paying members which no one so far here is except me. Comraderedoctober (talk) 04:25, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

"After some further inspection of the article, we decided to leave the mark for deletion uncontested. The arguments raised against the article are valid in many ways and would require extensive work to combat. A much simpler solution would be to wait until after the convention in June. At that point, the article will be easily rewritten, including the historic and continuing significance of the Party, making it far harder to contest.
 * Addendum: This is a copy of the email from the official source:

If you have any suggestions or input, we would appreciate hearing them. Atlee, thank you for all your efforts in this matter."

Peace, Gabe Ross Comraderedoctober (talk) 01:22, 17 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TigerShark (talk) 00:58, 21 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment - I know nothing of the subject, but note that its General Secretary and that of SDP of USA (which has no WP page) appear to be the same man. It cites a webpage for the USA party, but that has very little apparent content.  The USA party claims to be 110 years old.  If that is correct, I would have expected some one to have written a WP page on it.  My assumption is thus that this is a very minor entity and hence NN.  If I am right it should not only be deleted but salted to prevent recreation, but as I say i know nothing of it.  Peterkingiron (talk) 01:56, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Appears to fail notability per WP:ORG.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 12:37, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: While I would welcome a verifiable article on this subject, this article fails on that count. The confusion on the part of user Peterkingiron above is central, though, to the problem of this article.  The writer objecting above has vandalised the Social Democrats USA wikipedia article, and has created his new version of the SDP (in real life) in order to latch on these known organizations which are now defunct.  Thus the article under discussion has innacurate claims to importance when it is in fact a paper organization of a handful of people who either quit or were ejected from the SPUSA last year. These articles, along with Fist and Rose Tendency were writen using innaccurate, uncited information making grand claims of importance.  I only first listed the article under discussion for deletion after finding no citations that this org was still active, and after I'd edited three of the four articles mentioned to try and bring some sort or balance to them (and taking much abuse from User:Comraderedoctober (Atlee Yarrow) because of this).   Unfortunatly this editor seems to have no interest in documenting his claims for these organization, but rather to use wikipedia as a promotional device for each of the goups which he and a couple of his friends run  .  I would ask, therefore, that this article be deleted until such time as ANY citation of its current existance be found, and  that some completely neutral editors bring Social Democrats USA, Fist and Rose Tendency, and any article on a modern recration of the SDP-USA up to a baseline standard on notibility and verifiability.  T L Miles (talk) 18:03, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete, no sources that attest to the notability of this party. WP:ORG and whatnot.  Lankiveil (complaints 02:53, 27 January 2008 (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.