Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Boston Tea Party (political party) (2nd 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. (non-admin closure) Mediran (t • c) 01:11, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Boston Tea Party (political party)[edit]

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

This is an article about an online-only "political party" that existed for a few years. It has a decent-sized references section, but only two of them are about the organization itself and not self-published, only one of those is from something mainstream, and that one is a dead link. It was previously deleted at AFD but recreation was allowed per a DRV decision. I can't see for the life of me any way this passes a standard of notability. B (talk) 15:30, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:06, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:06, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:06, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep For me, a rule of thumb indicator for the notability of tiny U.S. political parties is whether or not they have had a presidential candidate on the ballot. In 2008, this party's candidate was on the ballot in three states. The Associated Press distributed a fairly lengthy article about the party in 2008, which the Miami Herald ran. That link went dead, as the nominator noted. I found the same story live on the Seattle Times website, and have replaced the reference. The deletion debate in early 2008 is no longer relevant, because the party actually got on the ballot in those three states after that deletion debate, as was the publication of the Associated Press story. So, my conclusion is that the party was tiny, is defunct, but is notable. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:37, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the party ran a ballot-qualified ticket in several states in 2008.--William S. Saturn (talk) 20:45, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I favor the lowest of bars for political parties, their leaders, and their youth sections. This is the sort of material that should be in a comprehensive encyclopedia, plain and simple. We should treat them like rivers, highways, high schools, and professional athletes. As Cullen notes above, this party not only of confirmed existence, it placed a presidential candidate on several state ballots — that's plenty for me. It's a GNG pass to boot. Carrite (talk) 01:24, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Verified existence, ran a ballot-qualifed candidate in a presidential election, and received enough coverage to satisfy WP:GNG.--JayJasper (talk) 16:58, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I understand why some may think they're not notable, since it's a tiny internet-only party and almost everything written about them is self-generated. If not for the fact that they had a presidential candidate on the ballot in several states in 2008, I'd agree with deletion. However, under the circumstances, I think they are notable enough to be included. HillbillyGoat (talk) 21:36, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As the founder of the Boston Tea Party, I'm obviously biased, but I do think it meets the notability threshold insofar as the party did place a presidential slate on several 2008 ballots. Another notability factor, not included in the current version of the article, is that the BTP was, so far as I've been able to determine, the first political party to hold a complete national convention -- gavel to gavel with bylaws and program plank votes, internal elections, etc. in 2006, and then again in 2008 with all that plus nominations for public office -- entirely on the Internet. An organization called "the Disability Party" apparently had a "convention" online in 2004, but that "convention" seems to have consisted entirely of an email ballot for nomination of a presidential slate that appeared on no ballots. Thomas L. Knapp (talk) 22:57, 12 April 2013 (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.