Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tax Cut Now Party


 * 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. Consensus to keep. (non-admin closure) feminist (talk) 16:15, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Tax Cut Now Party

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Cites no sources and elected no candidates to any office. Does not appear to have achieved substantial, non-trivial coverage in multiple reliable independent secondary sources. Toa Nidhiki05 12:53, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:10, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:10, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:10, 18 July 2019 (UTC)


 *  Merge  this tricky political trick to 1994 New York gubernatorial election.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:26, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep Now has sources, and was a part of the successful Pataki campaign. JASpencer (talk) 21:27, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:08, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, but sources are so thin and it was so short-lived that MERGE and REDIRECT page title to the campaign makes more sense.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:54, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   13:30, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep The party ran a successful campaign. Also, a search on WPREF, scholar , and books prove that the article satisfies the WP:GNG. AmericanAir88(talk)  14:08, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
 * , this party did not win an election. It’s a bit tricky to explain, but New York allows something called electoral fusion, and this “party” was a nonexistent organization created by the Republican Party. Electoral fusion in New York allows parties to nominate candidates from other parties and their votes count towards the candidate’s overall total, but they still hold a separate ballot line. Look at the actual sources added: the New York Times one notes that this “party” was really a ballot line, not an organization, and that it endorsed the exact same candidates as Republicans, because it was essentially just an alternative name for the party. Accordingly, this wasn’t a party at all - it was a legal fiction created by the Pataki campaign and the Republican party to take advantage of electoral fusion. This could easily be merged to the Republican Party of New York or to George Pataki. Just look at the sources you mention - in their tiny, trivial coverage of this party (which fails our notability guidelines, as they require comprehensive coverage), all of them will say this. This “party” is not independently notable of Pataki or the GOP. Toa <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Nidhiki05</i> 14:20, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Look at this sentence in the article "The creation of Tax Cut Now was a success; not only did his overall vote total exceed that of incumbent Mario Cuomo, propelling Pataki to the Governor's Mansion, but Tax Cut Now contributed 54,040 votes to the total." The article makes it evident that the party made a difference in the 1994. The amount of voters also allowed candidates to fully run. How about the campaign guide by the NYT . This gives insight on the Cuomo impact . These two books describes the power of the party . Here are some more books, , and . The point is that this article clearly passes the WP:GNG and has made an impact on New York politics. <b style="color: blue">AmericanAir88</b>(<b style="color: darkred">talk</b>)  14:30, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
 * The claim that the Wiki article makes is not backed up - it’s original research. Pataki won by double that amount. The New York Times campaign guide is exactly the source I was talking about; it mentions the party very briefly and trivially, notes it is a ballot line run by Republicans, and moves on. That is trivial coverage. Per WP:ORGCRIT, organizations must have significant coverage in multiple independent, reliable secondary sources. A brief passing mention is not significant coverage. Actually read your sources:


 * 1) Governing New York - Not even a full paragraph explaining the party existed and was a creation of the Pataki/Republican campaign. It was a “direct creature” of the Republican Party. It was created exclusively for Pataki’s 1994 campaign.
 * 2) Reports of selected cases decided in courts of the State of New York other than the Court of Appeals and the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court - This is a lawsuit and court case. Does not establish notability.
 * 3) Multiparty Politics in America: Prospects and Performance - It’s literally the exact same text as the Governing New York one.
 * 4) Village Voice - A two-sentence mention in the context of a naming dispute with the subject of the article. Again, it notes this a Republican front group. This is purely trivial coverage.
 * The two academic ones I cannot read. They do not mention the party in previews and you have not given any quotations to judge on. So out of what we can see, all mentions of this “party” are trivial, and all of them mention it in the context of being a Republican front group for the 1994 Pataki campaign. As suggested, this should be redirected to the 1994 New York gubernatorial election article, or perhaps to the articles for George Pataki or the Republican Party of New York. This “party” clearly is not independently notable of those. <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Toa</i> <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Nidhiki05</i> 14:43, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Lets see how this AFD turns out. I stand by my opinion. <b style="color: blue">AmericanAir88</b>(<b style="color: darkred">talk</b>) 14:55, 25 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep It's notable, e.g. Multiparty Politics in America. Andrew D. (talk) 10:16, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
 * See above. This is a trivial mention which does not qualify as substantial, non-trivial coverage and in fact corroborates the idea of merging with another article, as it is noted as a GOP front group. <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Toa</i> <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Nidhiki05</i> 14:45, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
 * coverage is of this party as a sort of political trick; by forming a legal "party" that qualified for a ballot line the George Pataki campaign found a way to found a way to get enough votes from voters judged unwilling to pull Republican levers to put Pataki, the Republican candidate, into office in a very blue state in the 1994 New York gubernatorial election.  There is no WP:SIGCOV of the party, only SIGCOV is  of it as a ballot line.  Making a merge appropriate.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:59, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
 * The source Multiparty Politics in America provides a variety of detailed facts about the topic and so passes WP:SIGCOV. My !vote stands.  Andrew D. (talk) 08:20, 31 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Weak keep - as the Freedom Party, it gained significant coverage back in the 1990s, fielded candidates, and had a following amongst moderate African-Americans for a time. Bearian (talk) 14:19, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Do you have any evidence for this? <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Toa</i> <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Nidhiki05</i> 15:48, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

I'll also point out that both and I live in Connecticut where fusion is also practiced. I therefore have the utmost confidence in his understanding of this type of political system. Further, I oppose merger at this time. Adding it to 1994 New York gubernatorial election, New York Republican State Committee, or George Pataki would create massive undue weight concerns. It's obvious that the party is best understood within the context of its creation, but until someone writes George Pataki 1994 New York gubernatorial campaign I see no reason to merge. &#8211; MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 01:58, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep I added some additional sources. It's also was cited in this supreme court review. Additionally, I found sources that could be added to our coverage, but since they concern local candidates I didn't know where to place them.
 * How would it be UNDUE to mention it on the New York GOP page? The entire history of this "party" can be summed up in like one paragraph: it was a ballot line created in 1994 to help Pataki's campaign, was used for that election, was run as a puppet organization by the state Republican party, and folded in 1998 when Pataki declined to use it. There is nothing notable about this "party" outside of its connection to the Pataki campaign. <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Toa</i> <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Nidhiki05</i> 02:20, 31 July 2019 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.