Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Constitutional Action Party (2nd nomination)

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 of the debate was speedy delete G4. RasputinAXP c 14:13, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Constitutional Action Party (2nd nomination)[edit]

Per previous AfD, utterly irrelevant political grouping, comprehensively shown by the content of the article to be NN (I hesitate to call it a party - if it is, it is almost certainly a boring one where even the vaguely interesting guests have all gone home) SM247 00:28, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep-It is not an expression of opinion and provides fact. If this should be removed, then many other things-such as old baseball players-should be removed. If it helps people learn, it shouldn't be removed. Alex 00:37, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not only does the article state that the "party" is no longer active, but they (or "he", most likely) aren't (unlike old baseball players) even of historical interest. RobLinwood 00:42, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. More nn political cruft. KleenupKrew 00:55, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete sounds like a one man party... MarineCorps 01:04, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article says it all: it has no chapters anywhere, no candidates for office; the party does not seem to be active in any way, shape or form. I'm almost wondering if this is speediable, since I'm not seeing any claim to notability. Peyna 01:16, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The party has not grown any more notable since its last AfD which ended in a delete. --Metropolitan90 02:19, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, this probably qualifies as a speedy for recreation of previous deleted content, no? Peyna 02:23, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That AfD debate was a while ago. DarthVad e r 02:46, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, I've added a db-repost tag anyway. Quote: Currently, the party does not seem to be active in any way, shape or form as it's website currently is off the Internet. - Motor (talk) 08:22, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable. DarthVad e r 02:46, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Peyna. Tachyon01 03:55, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, politicruft and repost of already deleted material. I've added a db-repost tag. - Motor (talk) 08:19, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, politicruft, nn party, its a repost of the old article. --Ter e nc e Ong 13:59, 6 June 2006 (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.