Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Feudalist 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   delete (closing as speedy). Neutralitytalk 06:30, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

The Feudalist Party

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Despite the party's founders' assertions, I remain unconvinced that this organization is notable. I couldn't find any sources in Google News or Google Books, and it sounds suspiciously like something made up in school one day. —  Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 16:21, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Although founded by high school students, I find no reason to believe this is not a genuine or serious political movement. It may not be mainstream by any means, but the references do claim it is a "grassroots" organization and is newly formed. I for one, would encourage this kind of of activism (even if I may not agree with their policy)for teenagers in my area. All political parties do, after all, have to start somewhere. I would find it disappointing for Wikipedia to delete this page and attack these students' interest in politics and current events simply because their ideas are not necessarily agreeable or because the "feudalist party" has not yet become popular. Giantsfan11 (talk) 18:25, 19 November 2011 (UTC)Giantsfan11 — Giantsfan11 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Speedy Delete - This is at best a bunch of teenagers geetting a bit carried away about their little club. The fact that they are unable to remember when it was founded or name the founders suggest that they are too ashamed to put their own names to it. Dross. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dutyscenee (talk • contribs) 16:53, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete - Nothing of interest to be seen here. --Axel™ (talk) 17:21, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
 * This was an informative and intriguing article. I was interested to learn that younger generations are embracing historical politics with such enthusiasm. Keep the page as others could stand to learn from it as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.42.182.86 (talk) 18:16, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Feudalism has always been one of my favorite historical periods. I would support leaving this page on wikipedia in the hopes that it can gain more attention from people like me who enjoy reading about Feudalism Parkerpulaski (talk) 18:31, 19 November 2011 (UTC)parkerpulaski — Parkerpulaski (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Delete There was  a historical Feudalist Party, but that's not what the article is about. Alessandra Napolitano (talk) 18:39, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Wow! I never thought I would see the day where FEUDALISM saw a resurgence in the political world. It sounds to me, based on what I read in their cited sources, that the founders of this party feel strongly about their ideals and are trying hard to inform others of them. I feel the page should not be deleted because for all we know this is a completely legitimate movement with today's youth. Why should we prohibit knowledge of their party from being shared on Wikipedia? 68.42.182.86 (talk) 18:39, 19 November 2011 (UTC)historybuff19
 * Hi 68.42.182.86, and thanks for commenting in this deletion discussion. This is just to let you know that you shouldn't usually "vote" more than once in deletion discussions (although this process is not a vote). Have a look at WP:AFDEQ for more advice on commenting here. Thanks —  Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 05:22, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
 * To be fair, User:68.42.182.86 didn't put even one boldfaced "vote" in this AfD, much less more than one. They have only submitted multiple comments, which is allowed. I disagree with their comments but they haven't abused the AfD process. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:22, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I for one think that we should be encouraging kids to get active in the political system and allow them to help decide values for themselves as opposed to telling them to go eat dirt. Who knows? Maybe this could really be the "next big thing". Cathcon (talk) 00:04, 20 November 2011 (UTC)Cathcon
 * Note to closing admin: is the creator of the article. —  Mr. Stradivarius  ♫ 05:26, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 01:43, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 01:44, 20 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete None of the sources meet the guidelines for reliable sources, and there is no evidence that this party has ever been registered at any level. If, someday, this party gains momentum, an article will be forthcoming. But, at this point, there is nothing to suggest this is a notable political party under either WP:GNG or WP:NGO. Joefridayquaker (talk) 02:17, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. This party has not yet been covered in sufficient reliable independent sources to qualify as a notable organization. Of the three sources, two are pages on Facebook and Wikispaces (not independent), and the third is a page explaining feudalism in medieval history (not mentioning this particular party). I would be reluctant to support having a Wikipedia article about this party until they (a) enter an actual political election and (b) receive coverage in independent reliable sources. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:30, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete - clearly fails WP:GNG and WP:ORG.--JayJasper (talk) 23:00, 21 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Speedy delete Clearly something invented in school one day; not notable in the least. ¿SFGi Д nts!  ¿Complain! ¿Analyze! ¿Review! 07:04, 22 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep Since when does something have to be, "On Google Books or Google News" to be reliable? Just because this is a different idea to the traditional ways of American society doesn't mean it doesn't exist.  Nothing can become nation wide in one day.  How are many of these ideas supposed to arise if they are immediately shunned and taken down?  Allow these people, that obviously feel very strong about their opinion, express it!  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Show some support (talk • contribs) 21:13, 22 November 2011 (UTC)  — Show some support (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * If your reliable sources aren't on Google Books or Google News, where are they? And I would note that many political parties were created throughout the world and some became very successful even before Wikipedia ever existed. I am not expecting you (the Feudalist Party) to get a president of the United States elected before you can have a Wikipedia article. I am just expecting you to run a candidate in an actual election and get some legitimate coverage in reliable independent sources. Does that sound too difficult? --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:37, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Its hard to get any support when the idea just gets shot down right away the way it is here! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.209.92.162 (talk • contribs)
 * I'm not saying that I agree with the party or that you have to agree with the party. All that I'm saying is that this is a group of highly motivated people that are just trying to be heard.  Many people claim that the young generation is disinterested in politics.  Now that there is a group that wants to get involved, there idea is shot down.  Who is to determine what is a legitimate idea and whats a "High School Prank"?  From the goals and ideas listed on the page, this seems way to thought out to be a high school prank. 03:30, 23 November 2011 (UTC)Show your Support — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.209.92.162 (talk • contribs)
 * Please see WP:GNG, WP:ORG & WP:NOR. Note that Wikipedia is, by its own defined standards, a tertiary source. Which basically means that is not a place to generate publicity or to "be heard", but rather it documents subjects that have already "been heard" - which is to say given significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. If you're trying to create publicity, there are other more appropriate outlets for doing so on the internet (e.g. blogs, social media). You can also start a letter-writing campaign to newspapers & other media outlets. Then, when the Feudalist Party has received significant attention in reliable outside sources, come back and recreate the article. Until then, sorry to say, Wikipedia is simply the wrong venue.--JayJasper (talk) 20:06, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

If someone were to hear about anything, including this so-called "Feudalist Party", it's common knowledge that the first place to go is wikipedia. People are probably calling for this article's deletion because they think that including something like this will make wikipedia less reliable or something. That, I believe, would be wrong. In fact, including this, along with the articles on other pages of things people maybe haven't heard of before, is what makes wikipedia one of the best free sources for information around. Are there that many sites where you can find a list of counties in a certain state? The list of representatives from Wyoming's At-Large District? No. That is what makes wikipedia great and that's why I say we should be keeping this article. 68.41.80.143 (talk) 20:34, 23 November 2011 (UTC) — 68.41.80.143 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Keep First of all, I do not understand the obsession about whether or not this party was mentioned in Google Books or Google News. It is not a book, and Google News is only one of a virtually unlimited amount of news sources. The party's absense from these sites seems totally irrelevant to this discussion. Clearly it is rooted in a number of other sources and therefore is recognized in more than one place. In addition, the fact that this party has not yet produced a candidate in an election has nothing to do with whether or not it is a real political party. In the United States of America, I might add, 2011 (when it was founded) was not an election year. They have not been around long enough to even have had the chance to nominate a candidate for any notable election (for all we know they could be planning an election bid as we write here). Anyways, this party is obviously starting from the ground up so it doesn't make sense to me why we are expecting libraries full of information about it within months of the creation. We shouldn't be so quick to shoot it down. — Tulsa667 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Delete: WP:MADEUP. --Shirt58 (talk) 03:34, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom, obviously authored by someone with a COI; content is wholly promotional and unverified. — Jean Calleo (talk) 23:15, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep The idea that this page is a conflict of interest is absurd. While reading it, I found it completely objective and informative. Nowhere in the article did the writer use the words "I" or "We" so as to suggest this page is promotional. It is merely a reflection of what was already established in the source websites. — Dumdumdum4 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Speedy delete I'm sure the kids have enjoyed their fifteen minutes of Wikipedia fame, but come on! This is an absolutely classic example of something made up one day and it has no place in Wikipedia. That's what Facebook is for, and these kids know it: in fact they are canvassing for meatpuppets on their Facebook page. --MelanieN (talk) 22:22, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
 * P.S. But I do have to say, kids, this was clever and I enjoyed it! Keep doing fun creative stuff like this - just not on Wikipedia! --MelanieN (talk) 22:58, 25 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete as lacking significant coverage in multiple independent third party sources. Feel free to ping my talk page if these are added to the page. Stuartyeates (talk) 22:29, 25 November 2011 (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.