Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/North Carolina Green 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 merge to List of state Green Parties in the United States. In the future, I recommend discussing specific, non-local, reliable sources in arguments to "keep" articles on similar organizations. czar 07:21, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

North Carolina Green Party (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails Wikipedia's notability guidelines for companies and organizations, as tagged since December 2015. GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 05:13, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. No candidates, not listed on directories of NC political parties. At this stage, a social club asking for donations. Possibly too soon. Jack N. Stock (talk) 06:47, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment, I totally disagree term "social club asking for donations" by Jacknstock. They ran a write in campaign for Cynthia McKinney. Also in 2000, former party chairman Doug Stuber ran Ralph Nader's Green Party presidential campaign. Then there's the Jill Stein connection. Hardly a social club! Karl Twist (talk) 09:48, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Every source says Jill Stein was not on the ballot in NC. As I said, this club ran no candidates. You're just name-dropping, and the notable people you list seem to not even be members of this club. Even if they were, WP:INHERITORG. Jack N. Stock (talk) 13:38, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, notable organization. Many notable aspects. Karl Twist (talk) 09:48, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Karl Twist: "The debate is not a vote; please do not make recommendations on the course of action to be taken that are not sustained by arguments" AusLondonder (talk) 00:39, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to AusLondonder. I know that AusLondonder. That's why I said many notable aspects as per my findings. I did a couple of quick edits as I was rushed but what I found in my searches about the party were enough to satisfy me that this is a notable political party and therefore worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia. Thanks. Karl Twist (talk) 23:13, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep established political party that is party of established national party. Multiple independent sources cover organization and actions of group going back over a decade.--TM 11:09, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 17:43, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 17:43, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge - Fails WP:ORG. Suggest merge to List of state Green Parties in the United States. Me-123567-Me (talk) 03:02, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, clearly this political party faces challenges regarding ballot access, but they are an active state party of the national GPUS. Also Jill Stein was the only recognized write-in candidate in NC in 2106. --Editor B (talk) 02:21, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:45, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Although currently a stub, this meets notability as a state affiliate of the fourth largest US political party. It has run organized ballot access drives and lawsuits. It has engaged in coordinated write-in campaigns. It has had members prominently involved in the 2000 and 2016 presidential campaigns, as well as currently serving on the national GP Steering Committee. Bcharles (talk) 19:26, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as WP:TOOSOON Party has not been on the ballot; neither has it been covered in WP:RS. Most of the references are self-sourcing, the only "newspaper" is The Daily Tar Heel, an undergrad newspaper, insufficient to support notability. It is one of only 7 hits in a g-News search [1], 2 of which are mere event listings, the others discusses this party only as one of a group of parties trying to get on the ballot.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:23, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or Merge to List of state Green Parties in the United States. Does not meet WP:ORGCRITE or WP:ORGDEPTH. Being a state affiliate of a micro party is not a credible reason to claim a freebie inclusion AusLondonder (talk) 23:59, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or merge to List of state Green Parties in the United States. I don't see any in-depth, secondary sources on the subject, and the "keep" voters don't provide any. Neutrality^talk 15:12, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep - US state green parties are notable as evidenced by this deletion discussion which ended in Speedy Keep. J947 03:27, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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.