Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/United Progressive Party (USA)


 * 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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 08:16, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

United Progressive Party (USA)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Article's subject only covered by one source, fails WP:GNG and WP:ORG. RA 0808 talkcontribs 21:42, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions.  RA 0808  talkcontribs 21:44, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions.  RA 0808  talkcontribs 21:44, 31 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete basically per nom: the only thing I can find that looks at all like coverage in a third party reliable source is this, which doesn't look very significant to me. Many of the citations in the article are to Facebook, political campaigning websites or to news articles that don't mention the subject of the article, these won't help for establishing notability. If this organisation becomes more widely known or achieves more political successes then it may be more appropriate to create an article on it then.  Hut 8.5  21:58, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete: Per norm. Catmando999   Check out his talk page!  04:21, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete - per above. Neutralitytalk 14:18, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete per Hut 8.5's research not finding evidence of notability. -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:51, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:58, 1 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment - I favor the lowest of all possible barriers to inclusion of pieces on political parties, their leaders, and their youth sections. That said, this for me still lies in the realm of Facebook phantasy organization rather than a living, breathing organization — at which point I would immediately opine for inclusion. Delete for now per WP:CRYSTAL, a NOTYET sort of situation. Userfy to the creator if so desired. Carrite (talk) 16:16, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete perhaps it's just WP:TOOSOON. No prejudice against re-creating after this Party wins an election, or garners sufficient coverage to pass WP:GNG.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:47, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete as it's only best known currently to Bernie and there's nothing else to suggest, beyond the coverage and information, that it can currently be its own article. SwisterTwister   talk  05:56, 7 June 2016 (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.