Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Electoral history of the Constitution Party (United States)

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 keep. Thanks everyone who participated. Please keep all responses to closure civil. If you wish to contest the results, please consider improving the article first prior to renominating or challenging this decision. Thank you. Missvain (talk) 23:52, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Electoral history of the Constitution Party (United States)[edit]

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

This article is definitely well sourced, but it is very out of date, incomplete, and most importantly, the subjects of this article are not notable. Most of the CP candidates received much less than 5% of the vote, and most don't even have their own articles. Also, the "current" elected officials (if it is even up-to-date) do not have their own articles. Fails WP:GNG. 1990'sguy (talk) 21:46, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 22:19, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 22:19, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 22:19, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 22:20, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, update and improve. The topic is notable and well-sourced. Per WP:ARTN, "Conversely, if the source material exists, even very poor writing and referencing within a Wikipedia article will not decrease the subject's notability", which I believe speaks to the problems of incomplete or out of date material.--TM 02:11, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, update, and improve. To 1990sguy's point, if "notability" of 3rd party candidates were a requirement, we wouldn't cover 3rd parties at all. But this article isn't about them, it's about the electoral history of the party, and in that kind of list context the individual notability is irrelevant. Namiba nails it. ⇔ ChristTrekker 14:22, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep But limit to officials who actually were elected to office, whether current or former. A list of every candidate the Party ever ran for any office would be nearly impossible to complete and very unwieldy in length. Third party candidates in the US being elected to office is unusual enough that a list of them could be notable, but an indiscriminate list of everyone the Party ever ran is not. Smartyllama (talk) 18:55, 15 June 2016 (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.