Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Socialist Party of North Carolina (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.  So Why  07:14, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Socialist Party of North Carolina
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Previously deleted at AfD. Doesn't meet WP:GNG or WP:ORG. Boleyn (talk) 10:42, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete: A search yielded only trivial mentions that do not prove the subject's importance or notablility. --Hazarasp (talk) 12:41, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep I've added information from a variety of secondary sources. The party when it was affiliated with the Socialist Party of America was relatively strong and is mentioned repeatedly in historical accounts of the era. It needs a lot of cleanup but that is not a reason to delete.--TM 14:19, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.  WC  Quidditch   &#9742;   &#9998;  21:30, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions.  WC  Quidditch   &#9742;   &#9998;  21:31, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions.  WC  Quidditch   &#9742;   &#9998;  21:31, 18 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Redirect title to Socialist Party USA. While it is true that there was a Socialist Party in North Carolina back in the day, the article does not claim that it ever won an election, or did anything else of any significance.  As per WP:NOTSOAPBOX, the article is presently being used to  WP:PROMOTE a Socialist Party of the same name  recently established, but that also has won no elections and seems to have made no waves.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:27, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
 * There are multiple, reliable sources covering the subject at hand. Whether it won an election or not is not the issue. Most alternative parties have little electoral influence but the question is about sources, not success.--TM 16:21, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I looked before I commented, and the sources fail to claim or to show that the Party had an impact of any kind. It existed, and its adherents engaged in the usual arguments with other socialists, covered briefly or merely mentioned in a handful of political histories and a history of the American Communism. There is an article on the National Party, but only 4 state parties are linked. One of the things that counts towards keeping a political Party is that it has won elections.  Here, we are looking for some evidence that this party had an impact in North Carolina, apart, that is, from the impact that the Socialist party, in general, had on the politics of the United States, in general.  Something like getting enough votes to throw a statewide election a la Ralph Nader.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:50, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
 * That may be your personal standard, but that is not the standard for Wikipedia. The existence of political party that advocated against Jim Crow in the US South and won thousands of votes while doing so is actually quite extraordinary. Its activities received mainstream and statewide press coverage during its day and continue to be written about by academics and other authors. That explains why it passes WP:ORG.--TM 18:49, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
 * You might want to look at WP:ORG and at this recent debate Articles for deletion/People's Justice Party (UK) during which an article on a political party was persuasively sourced.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:36, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
 * With all due respect, that's an OTHERSTUFF argument — there is no requirement that a political organization win an election, that is wholly irrelevant. What matters is that GNG be fulfilled by the existence of multiple, independently published sources of presumed reliability from which a decent article can eventually be constructed. This subject clearly meets that threshold. Carrite (talk) 03:02, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 03:52, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
 * The Socialist Party of North Carolina is still active through the Northern Piedmont local, we have been growing quickly and meet on a monthly basis. The events we have attended and co-organized have definitely had an impact on North Carolina. We will be running campaigns for local office in the near future, especially if SB656 passes and we are able to get ballot access. I cannot find anything on the Wikipedia 'about' section that states political parties should have to be big enough to win or throw elections to have a blurb on Wikipedia, especially if they are currently active parties. It is worth mentioning that North Carolina fears third parties throwing elections enough that they make laws specifically to keep us off the ballot, indeed, these laws were made specifically because a socialist candidate gained ballot access. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.19.137.26 (talk) 18:11, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I've added this report which examines North Carolina ballot access laws and indicates that, in response to the SPNC's ability to get on the ballot in 1932, the 1935 NC legislature drastically increased ballot access requirements, which last until today. Seems like a long lasting impact to me.--TM 11:45, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment - In the United States state-level political parties are autonomous of the national entities and have their own elected officials and structures. Nobody would argue that this is the least problem for the Republican Party (North Carolina Republican Party) or the Democratic Party (North Carolina Democratic Party); nor should it be a problem for the Socialist Party, which had a full structure down to the county level in certain years of its existence. Before I demonstrate that this particular state organization meets GNG (which it does), I do want to comment upon part of the confusion. In 1972-73, the Socialist Party of America blew up into three factions. One of these became the Democratic Socialist Organizing Committee, now Democratic Socialists of America — today the largest socialist organization in the US, I think, claiming 20,000 members. Another of these became Social Democrats, USA, which atrophied and has, with several confusing factional death throes, now gone extinct. The third of these, actually the smallest faction in 1973, emerged as Socialist Party USA, which continues to this day. All three of these organizations claim to be heirs of the Socialist Party of Debs and Thomas, although the claims are not ironclad for any. In an ideal world the old, guaranteed to meet GNG or your money back, Socialist Party of North Carolina (SPA) would be a separate article from the Socialist Party of North Carolina (SPUSA), which is a very small outfit and which may or may not meet GNG on its own. "Piggybacking" these articles is not unusual, see my Socialist Party of Oregon and Socialist Party of Washington pieces for other examples of this genre. They do need to be split at some point, I observe. Anyway, some sourcing evidence to follow. Carrite (talk) 00:52, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep as the subject of multiple pieces of substantial coverage in independently published publications of presumed reliability. Taking a random wander through the forest to demonstrate this... Here is A PIECE in the Asheville Citizen-Times, March 8, 1901, on the Asheville, NC Municipal Socialist Club pursuing the elections with a slate of candidates. This information would be included in a big kids' history of the SPNC... Carrite (talk) 01:07, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
 * ANOTHER PIECE from the same source, March 11, 1901, on forthcoming mass meeting featuring a speaker from Tennessee. Carrite (talk) 01:09, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Wow, this fucking rocks, a local SPA newspaper, The Workman, published in Asheville, issue of March 30, 1901. Link might be paywalled to Newspapers.com subscribers. Most of these type papers were privately owned and not party owned, for what it's worth. Includes the Socialist Party of Asheville's platform on page 1. This would become Local Asheville SPA in the summer of 1901... Carrite (talk) 02:44, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Coverage of the full slate of candidates of the Socialist Party in the 1901 election in Asheville, NC HERE. You will note the Socialists ran candidates for city council, chief of police, tax collector, superintendent of waterworks, and so on — the Socialist Party was a real political party in every way in North Carolina, not a club of half a dozen activists. Carrite (talk) 02:50, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
 * ...And here is A PIECE from the Statesville [NC] Record And Landmark noting that there was a Local of the Socialist Party of North Carolina in Forsythe County, NC which named a ticket for the 1902 campaign. Carrite (talk) 02:59, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
 * And so on and so forth. As you can see, a viable history meeting GNG can be built for state units of the Socialist Party for pretty much every state and territory of the United States if the focus is placed on the 1901-1924 period when it was the number 3 party in the United States. Whether the contemporary group calling itself the Socialist Party of North Carolina (SPUSA) meets similar muster is less clear, but tagging on the contemporary organizations to the historical parties is common practice and there's really no reason to go postal on the attempt to do so. They have a legitimate claim to organizational continuity, as I note above. Carrite (talk) 02:59, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Also some coverage here and there in Gregory S. Taylor, The History of the North Carolina Communist Party. Columbia, SC: University of South Carolina Press, 2009. Carrite (talk) 05:45, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Don't miss the entry in NC Pedia, "Socialist Party of North Carolina], listed in the footnotes. I almost did. This counts to GNG also. Carrite (talk) 17:09, 1 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep per notability guidelines (secondary sources) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:55, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep There is enough unique content to make a useful article separate from the parent organization. It is best not to merge. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:34, 1 July 2017 (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.