Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/History of the Green 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 keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:48, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

History of the Green Party of the United States[edit]

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

party promo The Banner talk 11:52, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:27, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:27, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:27, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Legitimate spin-out of lengthy parent article Green Party of the United States. It may not be quite as illustrious as History of the United States Republican Party, and it could do with more third-party sources and fewer quotes, but there's nothing that can't be fixed by editing. --Colapeninsula (talk) 14:29, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The subject doesn't have enough history to require two articles. The history of the party can easily be folded into the article about the party. Moreover, as it stands, this article reads like a brochure touting the Green Party. I don't have much hope that someone could write an objective history of this party. The article should go therefore. Chisme (talk) 16:18, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The current article is extremely bloated and needs paring down, but the factual details here (including first candidates, victories, results in national elections, etc.) is legitimate content that would probably overwhelm the main article. --Arxiloxos (talk) 18:59, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - This is obviously a spin-out article of a section of Green Party of the United States intended to keep the main article from becoming unreadably long. No valid reason for deletion given by nominator in any event. Carrite (talk) 20:50, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think it is valid as a subtopic that could, and should, be salvaged. Thincat (talk) 21:12, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but clean up per the above. A legitimate fork meant to prevent a massive bloating in the main article. That being said, this article needs some clean-up. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 22:57, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per previous comments, a legitimate spin-off article with relevant content. Also agree w/ others that cleanup is needed.--JayJasper (talk) 00:39, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep definitely needs clean-up and updating, but a legitimate article nominated without legitimate rationale.--TM 11:26, 6 June 2014 (UTC)`[reply]
- Advertising / promotion is a valid rationale, if you like it or not The Banner talk 15:44, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but drastically remove poorly sourced and unsourced content. It is a notable topic but the article's current form, with numerous primary sources and many violations of the manual of style, is an embarrassment to Wikipedia.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 14:58, 9 June 2014 (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.