255:, to wit: "Organizations whose activities are local in scope may be notable where there is verifiable information from reliable independent sources outside the organization's local area". Note this criterion does not require non-trivial coverage, only "verifiable information". The subject still has to meet the general notability criteria, and I contend it does (see the rest of my comment); if you doubt the organization is notable, look at the reliable sources archived at the party's website. Furthermore, remember that lack of reliable sourcing is not a
204:. Even a minor third party, active in multiple states, is notable. The party website has reprints of numerous reliable secondary sources (beyond the Boston TV party incident), which would easily establish notability if someone were to track them down at their original publishing sites to confirm they haven't been fabricated (no reason to think so, just to be on the safe side). I have added mentions of the party in the
402:. "156 votes" in a national presidential election is the epitome of non-notable. No non-trivial press coverage. Has no chance of becoming more notable, because it seems to have ceased to exist. Embarrassingly factually inaccurate, as it talks about the "2006 US presidential elections." If the article somehow survives this AFD, it needs a complete rewrite.
234:
Sorry, but the entire coverage in the NY Times is "said
Jeffrey Peters, a New Hampshire resident who is head of a group called We the People that advocates greater political participation". This does not constitute non-trivial coverage of We the People. The Guardian's entire mention is "Jeffrey
358:
And I can see I've side-tracked the discussion with what I intended to be a pro-forma effort to satisfy a secondary criterion that, actually, doesn't apply, because a political party that runs candidates for
President in multiple states is not a local organization. Sorry to have derailed the
312:
generally notable. Further on in the paragraph local organizations are discussed: "Organizations whose activities are local in scope may be notable where there is verifiable information from reliable independent sources outside the organization's local area." It is emphatically
335:
Since
Wikilawyering is the order of the day, it is worth noting that "may be" does not mean "are automatically", and that in common English, a passing mention of the existence of an organization is not necessarily considered "information"
303:
Look at that policy again, please. It says: "Organizations are usually notable if they meet both of the following standards ... The scope of their activities is national or international in scale". That does
139:
This party has only received in-passing coverage as far as I can tell. The "Boston TV Party" may be a notable event, but even in the coverage of it, there is no non-trivial coverage of the We the People party.
132:
72:
143:
Just as articles aren't meant to have trivia sections, neither is
Knowledge intended to be a collection of trivia about non-notable organizations, even if they are political parties.
99:
94:
103:
86:
375:
Are you suggesting that its activities are "national in scope"? I think that would be a view not supported by the consensus definition of that term.
154:
174:
317:
that only national or international organizations are notable; rather, there's another criterion to be met for local organizations.
381:
346:
241:
149:
17:
411:
386:
368:
351:
326:
292:
268:
246:
225:
196:
176:
56:
90:
426:
36:
216:
regarding non-local coverage. The article needs to be re-written, but that's not a valid reason for deletion.
425:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
82:
62:
364:
322:
264:
221:
172:
376:
341:
236:
192:
144:
288:
360:
318:
260:
217:
308:
mean that local organizations are non-notable, only that national/international organizations
169:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
188:
251:
For what it's worth, the cites you are referring to were added in response to one of the
284:
205:
279:
Did you read "The scope of their activities is national or international in scale."?
407:
256:
252:
213:
209:
50:
120:
163:
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
259:, unless the subject "cannot possibly be attributed to reliable sources".
235:
Peters (We The People party)". Neither can this be considered non-trivial.
403:
419:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
253:
secondary notability criteria for non-commercial organizations
127:
116:
112:
108:
168:
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –
187:I don't understand why this has lasted this long.
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
429:). No further edits should be made to this page.
73:Articles for deletion/America's We The People
8:
70:
7:
257:valid criterion for article deletion
69:
24:
18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion
212:which confirm the party meets
1:
61:
412:13:15, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
387:07:56, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
369:07:46, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
352:07:56, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
327:07:43, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
293:06:31, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
269:06:14, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
247:02:17, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
226:02:12, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
197:00:56, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
177:00:38, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
155:09:20, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
57:03:08, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
446:
422:Please do not modify it.
32:Please do not modify it.
83:America's We The People
63:America's We The People
68:AfDs for this article:
214:WP:ORG's requirements
340:that organization.
283:, insignificant.
44:The result was
179:
437:
424:
384:
379:
349:
344:
244:
239:
167:
165:
152:
147:
130:
124:
106:
53:
34:
445:
444:
440:
439:
438:
436:
435:
434:
433:
427:deletion review
420:
382:
377:
347:
342:
242:
237:
161:
150:
145:
126:
97:
81:
78:
66:
51:
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
443:
441:
432:
431:
415:
414:
396:
395:
394:
393:
392:
391:
390:
389:
372:
371:
355:
354:
330:
329:
296:
295:
276:
275:
274:
273:
272:
271:
229:
228:
206:New York Times
199:
181:
180:
166:
158:
137:
136:
77:
76:
75:
67:
65:
60:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
442:
430:
428:
423:
417:
416:
413:
409:
405:
401:
400:Strong delete
398:
397:
388:
385:
380:
374:
373:
370:
366:
362:
361:Baileypalblue
359:discussion.
357:
356:
353:
350:
345:
339:
334:
333:
332:
331:
328:
324:
320:
319:Baileypalblue
316:
311:
307:
302:
301:
300:
299:
298:
297:
294:
290:
286:
282:
278:
277:
270:
266:
262:
261:Baileypalblue
258:
254:
250:
249:
248:
245:
240:
233:
232:
231:
230:
227:
223:
219:
218:Baileypalblue
215:
211:
207:
203:
200:
198:
194:
190:
186:
183:
182:
178:
175:
173:
171:
164:
160:
159:
157:
156:
153:
148:
141:
134:
129:
122:
118:
114:
110:
105:
101:
96:
92:
88:
84:
80:
79:
74:
71:
64:
59:
58:
55:
54:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
421:
418:
399:
337:
314:
309:
305:
280:
210:The Guardian
201:
184:
170:Juliancolton
162:
142:
138:
49:
45:
43:
31:
28:
189:Miami33139
285:AnyPerson
315:not true
133:View log
100:protect
95:history
52:MBisanz
281:Delete
185:Delete
128:delete
104:delete
46:delete
383:matic
378:Bongo
348:matic
343:Bongo
338:about
243:matic
238:Bongo
151:matic
146:Bongo
131:) – (
121:views
113:watch
109:links
16:<
408:talk
365:talk
323:talk
289:talk
265:talk
222:talk
208:and
202:Keep
193:talk
117:logs
91:talk
87:edit
404:THF
310:are
306:not
410:)
367:)
325:)
291:)
267:)
224:)
195:)
119:|
115:|
111:|
107:|
102:|
98:|
93:|
89:|
48:.
406:(
363:(
321:(
287:(
263:(
220:(
191:(
135:)
125:(
123:)
85:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.