Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Expansionist Party of the 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 delete. The sources listed do not present the substantial independent coverage required to establich notability, and the delete arguments are convincing. JohnCD (talk) 18:20, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Expansionist Party of the United States

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

Minor political party. No reliable third-party sources are included in the article, and I was unable to find significant coverage in any such sources when searching using Google. Notably, Google News comes up with nothing at all. Thus I contend that this party fails WP:ORG and WP:GNG. Pfainuk talk 16:58, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:24, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:25, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The Expansionist Party of the United States does exist since 1977 and it even fronted an independent candidate for the US presidential elections in 2000 namely L. Craig Schoonmaker, who is the president of the party. There are so many US political parties that are not on the news currently, and incidentally Google News gives you only hapennings in the most recent say a month or so. If a party does not appear in a Google News search, it doesn't mean it doesn't exist or is insignificant. In fact most of the subjects you cover Pfainuk, in your edits are not on Google News either (for example Falklands sovereignty, Somaliland, Gibraltar, List of states with limited recognition so at least I would have expected more understanding from somebody like you on non-mainstream parties. USA being mainly a two-party system, almost all important activity by other parties does not get properly reflected. At least in Wikipedia, we are not biased towards reenforcing this two-party system of hegemony on political life. Deleting such articles including this one only helps in reenforcing the hold of the Democrats and Republicans on the system. I say deleting such articles does not serve the propagation of information well on Wikipedia. werldwayd (talk) 17:27, 21 February 2010 (UTC) werldwayd (talk) 17:33, 21 February 2010 (UTC)werldwayd (talk) 21:45, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, perhaps you can show me some reliable sources? I would be perfectly happy to be proved wrong (I note that Google News wasn't my only search) but do not feel that your message has done so. You say he ran for President - but the party website makes it clear that this was as a write-in candidate, he having failed to make ballot access. I do not dispute that this party exists, but that's not our criterion here. We look for notability, not existence. We are not biased towards the Democrats and Republicans, but equally we should not be biased towards minor parties. We should reflect the parties as they exist. I see no evidence that this party is notable, and thus no evidence that an article is appropriate coverage for this party.

I wonder if you've actually checked Google News on the topics you list from my edit history. Because given the ongoing and current row over oil extraction in the waters around the Falklands, I am astounded that you were not able to find any coverage of Falklands sovereignty on Google News. I demonstrate: Falklands sovereignty, Somaliland recognition and Gibraltar all show up significant numbers of results. But this is beside the point. I didn't just search Google News, and I was not able to turn up any evidence that this party passes WP:GNG, in Google News or otherwise. That it exists, certainly, but not that it passes WP:GNG. If you can prove me wrong, please do. But you haven't yet. Pfainuk talk 17:51, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete Without secondary coverage the article does not satisfy general notability for organisations. My own prefrences aside those are the facts.Ottawa4ever (talk) 18:13, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There is Enough to prove notability. I dug up sources of my own icluding but not limited too This Newspaper Article, this article, a mention in a New York Times Article and also these: [1], [2], [3]. I think there is borderline enough to merit inclusion. -Marcusmax(speak) 18:53, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If they can be implemented Im more than happy to change my 'weak' delete and support keepingOttawa4ever (talk) 19:30, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The last two are letters to the editor and are thus not independent. The New York times reference is trivial (one sentence). The others are two brief articles in the Ottawa Citizen and one in the North Island Gazette. Three sources, all short. That leaves us with three sources: a North Island Gazette opinion piece from 1990 and two brief articles in the Ottawa Citizen from 1977. All of them give roughly the same information, and what extra information is given in one but not the others - polling data and suchlike - is out of date.

My own view of the general notability guideline is that we should not have an article if there is no way that that article can possibly be policy-compliant. In my judgement, it is not possible to write a policy-compliant article on this party based on these sources: the article is still going to be primarily based on self-published sources in violation of WP:SELFPUB. Thus I maintain my position. Pfainuk talk 20:02, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thats exactly the issue (at least my view), you can find sources, but can they be implemented into the article? If they can, great keep, If they cant well then you have to go by the policy for deletion based on lack of secondary sourcing.Ottawa4ever (talk) 20:20, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Snippet in a book here. Fences&Windows 00:36, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

IMO that source is trivial: two sentences in a book of over 300 pages, plus an address which may well be out of date (the book is from 1993). This source does not change my opinion that a policy-compliant article is impossible based on the sources available. Pfainuk talk 18:09, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Citations prove it notable enough. Torquemama007 (talk) 15:42, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- the last source, the snippet from a book, states the party is "notable for nothing, if not eccentricity". Does that count for notability? Could interpret that in many ways. Bottom line is if you think the article should be kept with these sources, implement them, source the article, but can these sources do that forthis article?.Ottawa4ever (talk) 16:06, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. If sourcing is an issue then it would be a good idea to contact the Party to ask if it is aware of any coverage in independent third-party sources. Many small parties keep records of such coverage. —Psychonaut (talk) 12:05, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Absent anything like WP:RS coverage I was thinking it should go however the thing that tipped me over the edge was the sentence in the article "is not officially registered in the United States" - if that is the case and it is infant not registered it has to show with lots of coverage that it is notable and it does not. Codf1977 (talk) 13:10, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete This "party" seems to exist only in the mind of one man, Craig Schoonmaker (its founder, president, presidential candidate, etc.). In the only newspaper article cited here, the one from the Ottawa Citizen, Schoonmaker is described as "the self-styled chairman of the Expansionist Party of the United States". That article further notes that "there are no XP chapters; there are no party officials except himself; there is no organizing committee". Does that sound notable to you? As for the New York Times article cited here, it is an article about the large number of obscure organizations to be found in the United States, so that it cites the XP in the company of groups like the Vampire Research Center and the Ampersand Singles Club. Even the party webpage seems to migrate from host to host and is currently (since last October) in transition. And here's a gem: the application for membership in the party, which people can print off and mail to Mr. Schoonmaker. Enclose money please, and make it payable to Mr. Schoonmaker personally, since the "party" does not even have a bank account! --MelanieN (talk) 17:36, 28 February 2010 (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.