Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Florida Whig Party (3rd 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 was keep. No consensus to delete. The issue of merging can continue on the article's talk page. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Florida Whig Party

There is no reason for this state party to have a separate article from the national or international party. There exists no precedent in Wikipedia to allow for such an article. The state branch of the party itself is non notable and no reliable sources can be found asserting notability in a national context. This party has no members of note and no seats in the state legislature or major state offices. I will not withdraw this nomination either and promise to see this out to the very end. Baileyquarter (talk) 04:46, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A merge to Modern Whig Party seems most appropriate. --195.169.224.219 (talk) 06:56, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong & Speedy Keep: We have already gone through this and it was determined almost unanimously last time that this party is unique and holds a number of reliable coverage elements to make this notable. All of us also looked to see about this state party/lack of Wiki precedent and none of us could find any justification to merge or delete. Precedent is not a factor in deletion as was deemed the case last time, and notability was not and never has been in question. Initial problems that sparked the last AfD was COI, but this article was redone and fixed into compliance. This article should not be deleted solely because it is an affiliate of a larger organization. This party is unique from the national party because of its novel ballot access scenerio, something that has been distinctly recognized by seven (7) different third-party sources. The fact that seven sources, to include Army Times and Ballot Access News specifically single out this registered state party as notable, is what compelled me to recommend keep. The fact that this issue has already been resolved and all claims/justifications by Baileyquarter have already been put to rest compells me to recommend speedy keep. In that regard, I have limited this article, as have subsequent editors, to the basic notable elements based on these outside media sources.Aardvark31 (talk) 12:06, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep: Agree with last post. This entry is notable and the issues at hand have already been discussed ad naseaum. The entry is notable on its own as an individual registered entity and because the issue has already been hashed through as stated above. Danprice19 (talk) 12:14, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep: We JUST went through this in a contentious AFD. My opinion is, and was, that while there are some questions as to the reliability of a few of the sources, the article is sufficiently sourced to meet WP:GNG, and thus merits inclusion. I would prefer at least one source from a major media outlet for some additional reliability for the sake of improving the article, but what is there is sufficient for notability purposes. As to why the state party should have an article... First of all, the state party PRE-DATES the national party. Second, there is no policy indicating that state parties should not have articles, and indeed, as examples we have articles for the state parties of every major and most minor national parties in the states they operate in, here on Wikipedia. Of course, the mere fact that those articles exist does not give this article a pass, and is not in itself an argument to keep it, but rather a point made to prove that there is no policy dictating that state parties should not be included. Jo7hs2 (talk) 13:59, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Well sourced and a good stub on a new political party. I can see no reason why the result of the last discussion, only a month ago, needs to be changed. Reso lute 15:04, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Modern Whig Party and merge selected material. There is no reason whatsoever that this should be accorded the same treatment as Florida Democratic Party or Florida Republican Party. Rather, it should get the same treatment that is accorded by Wikipedia to minor parties that run candidates for parliament in European nations (i.e., don't win an election, don't get an article). There's no reason other than systemic bias to make a United States exception. Any discussion of the Florida organization (including its plans to run a candidate for Congress in 2010) is made within the context of the national party, which is going to support that candidate. If there were a Florida Whig sitting in that state's legislature, I would probably say keep. However, it's a case of Florida Whig is little more than a Modern Whig who resides in Florida. Mandsford (talk) 15:14, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: As I've mentioned previously, the party actually pre-dates the Modern Whig Party, which serves as a reason for keeping the article if it meets WP:GNG. If it did not predate the party, I would tend to support a merge for content reasons, but not for notability reasons. Jo7hs2 (talk) 23:02, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question. Why is this a new AfD nomination, last AfD closed on June 1, so at best this should be addressed through deletion review. -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 15:22, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 16:00, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 16:00, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 16:00, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep WP:SNOWBALL Article waltzed though two previous AfDs, what is the point of this one? Trevor Marron (talk) 16:20, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Waltzed through? It actually got deleted on the first AfD, so it didn't waltz through anything except through the wringer. On the second AfD, the nominator withdrew the nomination, so I wouldn't call that waltzing through either. I'm not saying that the Modern Whigs shouldn't have their article -- third parties can contribute to political change-- but the Florida branch of the Modern Whigs? Nah, don't make me laugh. Your guy will be lucky if he get 5% of the vote. Mandsford (talk) 22:04, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

5%? 1% would be an achievement. Florida had 14 people on the ballot for President in 2008. The 12 "third parties" combined got a total of 63,046 votes out of 8,390,744, which is about .007% of the vote. The best a single third party did was 0.3%. BTW, ballot access in Florida is a joke. You need 50 members of the party and pay the fee.Niteshift36 (talk) 01:19, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to the national party article. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:20, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has gone way off base and outside of wiki policy as the subject matter is being debated. Fact is that regardless of opinion about the actual subject, they have been mentioned in seven reliable sources as a notable and independent entity. Merge also isn't proper because this group is notable on its own and is merely affiliated with the Modern Whig Party and not registered as such. Debating the actual subject matter demonstrates bias and relinquishes credibility of the proposed resolution which ultimately leads me per policy to disregard. But beyond all that, this issue was debated last month and due to the open-mindedness and unbiased/proper nature of the original AfD user, it was withdrawn because all agreed this group is notable and stands on its own. Bottom line is this issue is old hat and was already debated and resolved LAST MONTHAardvark31 (talk) 02:06, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Nominator indefblocked as a sockpuppet of Wiki_brah. – iride scent 10:09, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question In light of the Nominator sockpuppet, "speedy keep" and "strong keep" recommendations, and fact that this AFD is redundant from the last one's resolution, is there a way to have an administrator take a look and remove the tag on this entry so we all can move on?Danprice19 (talk) 14:02, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I hope not. Technically we could procedurally close the AfD, but it can (and possibly will) be re-nominated immediately if the AfD is closed for that reason. We're already a couple of days into the discussion, why not let it run it's course? If it turns out a keep or no-consensus, this won't re-occur for a while. As for all the "keep" and "strong keeps", it's worth noting that noting that a couple of those "strong keeps" are editors who have done most of the work on the article. They are just as entitled to their opinion as anyone else, but it shouldn't come as a surprise that they want to save the article either. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:40, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as notability appears to have been proven through the inclusion of multiple reliable third-party sources as references. That said, if the party has never successfully elected a candidate, perhaps this text could be merged to the main party's article? - Dravecky (talk) 18:58, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect to Modern Whig Party Gang14 (talk) 05:38, 6 July 2009 (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.