Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Independent American 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. It seems like the sole keep argument does not actually establish notability nor does it indicate that the content is needed anywhere. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:16, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Independent American 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)

Small political party with no elected officers or noteworthy performances. Tags have existed on this article for years Article is sourced almost exclusively to the party itself; per WP:ORGCRIT, political parties must have received significant, non-trivial coverage in multiple independent reliable secondary sources - this article fails this. The only two citations to non-IAP sources are ballotaccessnews.com (a WordPress blog) and St. George’s News, an online free website that is not a newspaper and more or less seems to be an ad for the IAP. There is a link to an article from the Salt Lake Tribune, but this is not significant coverage: it merely documents that the party exists and that it wanted to be on the ballot. Per wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources, ThoughtCo is a self-published source, again failing our standards for citations. This party simply doesn’t seem to be notable and should be deleted. Toa Nidhiki05 12:30, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:32, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ~~ OxonAlex - talk 13:08, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

According to the article, they do have (or had) elected officials: "The IAP of Nevada has elected several candidates to local office, such as District Attorney, County Commissioner, County Clerk, and other local offices." Obviously the article is a shambles. --JBL (talk) 13:10, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, it’s in awful shape. That appears to be from a separate political party (in poor shape as well), not an affiliate or the same as this one. Toa Nidhiki05 13:15, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Huh. It's not clear to me from either article whether the two parties (Nevada and national) have ever been affiliated. If not, this article is in even worse shape than it seemed. --JBL (talk) 13:29, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Nevada one seems to have been an affiliate of the Constitution Party and was founded 3 decades before this party. I doubt these two parties were ever connected beyond having similar names. Toa Nidhiki05 13:46, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There were parties of this name in several states and they were connected with George Wallace, as the article explains. There is coverage in sources such as Left, Right, Out: The History of Third Parties in America and American Political Parties in the 21st Century. Perhaps the various state organisations should be merged but that's a matter of ordinary editing, not deletion per WP:ATD and WP:PRESERVE. Andrew D. (talk) 10:07, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Source one is for the American Independent Party, not the Independent American Party. Source 2 clearly fails WP:ORGCRIT’s trivial coverage standard. Toa Nidhiki05 10:35, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Andrew Davidson: please read the article more carefully: the connection with Wallace is entirely notional (it was founded in the 1990s), and (per the discussion above) the notable Nevada state party with this name seems never to have been affiliated with this party. --JBL (talk) 12:03, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Splitters!. Insofar as there is confusion, we should have a page which clarifies the matter for our readers. Andrew D. (talk) 12:24, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt anyone would be confused, and regardless this is not a valid reason to keep a page that does not meet our notability guidelines. Toa Nidhiki05 12:39, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt anyone would be confused At least, if this article did not spend significant space on the unrelated NV party, confusion would be much less likely. --JBL (talk) 13:15, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As JBL said, if it didn’t mention the other party there wouldn’t be anything to mention. Toa Nidhiki05 13:56, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There are two types of information in this article: sourceable information about a notable state political party with a long history, and information about a national party with no elected officials that is cited only to pages maintained by that party. This would be a case of cleanup needed, except that the notable state party is not affiliated with or related to the national party, except by the coincidence of name. Removing the material about the IAP of Nevada leaves nothing to indicate notability. Even if it were abstractly possible to support a page about this party (I don't think so, but hypothetically), nothing that appears at present would be useful. --JBL (talk) 12:10, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dom from Paris (talk) 17:05, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Put all information relevant to the Independent_American_Party_of_Nevada in that article and delete this one. I can't find any sort of notability. Squeeps10 ^{Talk to me}_{My edits} 19:52, 23 August 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.