Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/North Dakota Progressive Coalition

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. Arguments all around are rather weak but there has been a very considerable amount of time for improvements. Stifle (talk) 12:28, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

North Dakota Progressive Coalition (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)

My searches found nothing (with this and this being the best results) and there isn't even a minimal amount to suggest local notability, much less that there isn't much info about the group, now that it's closed) and there's no alternative to deletion such as moving elsewhere. This has managed to stay since July 2005 with never any significant improvement. Notifying past editors @Haymaker, EVula, Kingturtle, and Alexwcovington:. SwisterTwister talk 19:53, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 19:54, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Dakota-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 19:54, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 19:54, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to a very short sentence in Politics of North Dakota or Delete. It existed [1] but it didn't amount to much, a news google search garnered zero hits [2].E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:29, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I don't agree that "there isn't even a minimal amount to suggest local notability", it had 33 groups across North Dakota. SuperCarnivore591 (talk) 18:29, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• User:SuperCarnivore591 It would be useful if you could provide some reliable, third party source supporting notability.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:08, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm not sure that having 33 groups makes a party notable. --Slashme (talk) 20:46, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as failing WP:GNG. Quis separabit? 21:48, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - The organization just wasn't particularly notable. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 12:48, 7 September 2015 (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.