Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common Sense Party of California

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 speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Raladic (talk) 20:05, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Common Sense Party of California[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Doesn't meet WP:ORG notability and reads like a WP:PROMO. Most of the references are primary and one of the references even implies possible fraud, which is conveniently left out of the article. Raladic (talk) 03:21, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and California. Raladic (talk) 03:21, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the article's promo content or lack of relevant issues have no bearing on notability, those be resolved via copy-editing. In a five minute search I found mutli-year RS SIGCOV of the Party, some examples: LA Times profile Feb 2022, Orange County Register March 2022, San Francisco Chronicle Sept 2020, KPBS September 2020, NewsNation Jan 2023. Passes the GNG. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 22:11, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Thanks for the comment, I submit that under the WP:SIGCOV, I suppose it would meet the notability standard.

But with the article in its current form being an advert under WP:PROMO, does WP:NOT as one of the four policies on deletion per WP:BEFORE and WP:DEL-REASON not still apply as grounds for the AfD, or move into draft space? Raladic (talk) 22:58, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If an article on Coca-Cola only contained information about how good it tasted, it would be PROMO, but that would not mean it was not a valid subject for an article because the notability of Coca-Cola can be easily demonstrated via independent reliable sourcing. As is the case here, the solution to the problem is copy-editing, not deletion. Note the qualifying clause to DEL-REASON #4. "without any relevant or encyclopedic content." Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 02:12, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ok thanks for explaining the nuance. I hope someone will make the copy edits to make it less promotional.

I will withdraw the AfD per your explanation as speedy keep. Raladic (talk) 20:04, 16 April 2023 (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.