Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Green Mountain Party

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 delete camp has made much more specific arguments as to why the sources do not establish notability, which have not been rebutted. The sock's argument - aside from now being blocked - hasn't convinced anyone else. Redirects at editorial discretion, since most people favour deletion. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:09, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Green Mountain Party

[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)

Party has no elected officers and little to no membership. Almost all sources here are self-published or “Letter to the editor” types, and none of them provide significant, non-trivial coverage. Toa Nidhiki05 18:44, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:06, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:06, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Vermont-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:06, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this absolutely unnotable political party. Trillfendi (talk) 23:06, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this party has achieved the status of minor party in Vermont, the first since the Progressives in the 1980s, and in order to do so was required to reach a threshold of organization in ten towns and is featured in multiple non-editorial articles. User:Jon698 (User talk:Jon698) 00:07, 25 April 2019 (UTC) Blocked sock. -- Scott Burley (talk) 03:53, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Party organization in Vermont is not an establishment of notability; all it requires is basically having three people in ten towns (Vermont has 250 towns, 10 being 4%). You can theoretically "organize" a party with 30 people. Sources have not given non-trivial coverage (saying something exists doesn't make it notable). Toa Nidhiki05 01:13, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per Jon698. ImBadWithUsernames (talk) 13:50, 26 April 2019 (UTC) Blocked sock. -- Scott Burley (talk) 03:53, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This account seems highly suspicious. It only has a handful of edits, one of which was to, without a summary of context, remove tags placed by another user on a page Jon698 was heavily involved on. This user has virtually no other edits. Toa Nidhiki05 13:59, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment You found a single example of me editing the same article as somebody, who is one of the most prolific political related article makers and who has edited and created thousands of articles. You probably have more overlap with Jon and your account is more suspicious from your recent 24 hour editing blocking. ImBadWithUsernames (talk) 01:18, 27 April 2019 (UTC) Blocked sock. -- Scott Burley (talk) 03:53, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep appears to satisfy the absolute bare minimum requirements for notability, lucky for it thats all that is required. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 17:51, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as it has been covered by a sufficient number of independent sources. For example: [1], [2].--01:00, 30 April 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Namiba (talk • contribs)

The first source is a blog. The second acknowledges the party exists. Neither represent significant, non-trivial coverage. Toa Nidhiki05 03:17, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This organization represents something possibly quite noble but Wikipedia is not a forum for the promotion of ideology. The subject clearly does not possess independent and verifiable notability, since almost all sources cited & traced are self-referential, typical listings, or name drops. Let's hope it's only a case of too soon. -The Gnome (talk) 17:37, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Mountain Party as a plausible redirect. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 04:59, 2 May 2019 (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.