Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Modern Whig 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. MelanieN (talk) 04:01, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Modern Whig Party[edit]

[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)

Article does not comply with WP:NPOV, is promotional, showing advocacy, propaganda, or recruitment to a related political entity (Modern Whig Institute) and as presented does not belong on Wikipedia. Otr500 (talk) 15:12, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Otr500 (talk) 15:12, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and New York. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:14, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I've never heard of this political party, until today. GoodDay (talk) 17:35, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This is a tricky one, as there is quite a bit of coverage on newspapers.com, but it is all superficial and shallow in scope; those that aren't fall under WP:RSOPINION as opinion pieces, and the one's that aren't op-eds don't provide WP:SIGCOV. [1] I made some clippings of the best ones I could find, and here are the parameters I used [2]. Curbon7 (talk) 22:23, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Probably the most prominent mention of the party was in a David Brooks opinion piece, published a few months before the merger was negotiated: Opinion | The American Renaissance Is Already Happening - The New York Times (nytimes.com)

It sparked a debate in some circles. Here's one offering, which includes a link to the Institute which must have been added later (we didn't exist in June 2018): Why the American Whig Party Cannot Be Revived (lawliberty.org)

There's been discussion of Whiggery in general all along. Here's one piece from the period when the party was being revived after a dormant post-Tea Party period (full disclosure: the author has since become a personal friend of mine): Where Are the Whigs (When We Need Them)? - The American Interest (the-american-interest.com)

And here's a typical attack from the Austrian flank: David Brooks, The Whigs, and Corporate Welfare | Mises Institute

All of those popped up in a simple search. So, while the party never achieved any significant electoral gains -- which was the reason for the merger to form the Alliance Party (the story of barriers to entry for independent parties is a long one, @Johnpacklambert) -- Whiggery itself has been a significant tradition in American politics all along. And while the MWP ultimately failed, as did the first American Whig Party, the effort didn't go entirely unnoticed.

Which may or may not mean the entry should be retained. But I think it's prudent to look at the MWP from the perspective of an historical artifact, especially since it no longer exists, and make any judgments on that basis. KevinJRogers (talk) 15:26, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! As executive director of the Modern Whig Institute (I'm speaking here in that capacity rather than as a Wikipedia editor) I think I need to clear up a misunderstanding here: the Institute isn't a "related political entity" to anything, @Otr500, let alone to a political party which no longer exists. We're an independent civic association/think tank.

We don't lobby, and we're barred by law from engaging in electoral politics: "(A)ll section 501(c)(3) organizations are absolutely prohibited from directly or indirectly participating in, or intervening in, any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. Contributions to political campaign funds or public statements of position (verbal or written) made on behalf of the organization in favor of or in opposition to any candidate for public office clearly violate the prohibition against political campaign activity."

I have no idea whether that has any bearing on what happens to the Modern Whig Party entry. I just wanted to make sure any decision is based on the facts as they stand today.

Thank you! KevinJRogers (talk) 00:32, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete when about the best that can be said for your organization is that someone who claimed to be a member was elected as constable in some super small place while running officially as a member of another political party, your are not a significant organization.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:28, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- I think this is the wrong way of looking at this. There are a number of American politicial parties, like U.S. Labor Party and Liberty Union Party, that do reach notability even though they are at best minimally successful. It's entirely dependent on the range of sources that exist. Curbon7 (talk) 20:35, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete makes no sense — Preceding unsigned comment added by ScottWillis45 (talk • contribs) 14:37, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Many of the deletion proponents are not appropriately applying the standard for notability. For example, it is disingenuous for someone to argue for deletion simply because that user has never heard of this party. While clearly a minor political party, it 1) received considerable media coverage over a period of several years; and 2) was notable for some of its members winning or running as Whigs for the first time in 150 years, including one individual who specifically defeated a Democrat on the Modern Whig Party ticket for the first Whig victory in 159 years. According to the page, media coverage included the front page of the Wall Street Journal and inclusion into an up-and-coming political parties list in Time Magazine. The opinion pieces cited are not written as letters to the editor, but were crafted by on-staff opinion writers from various media outlets, including Slate and the News & Observer in NC. As such, the party is notable for the effort, coverage, and impact on the history of the Whig Party in modern times. Saying that, the article can certainly be fixed to remove references to the Modern Whig Institute (which does not appear to be notable at this time). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aardvark31 (talk • contribs) 22:15, 14 April 2022 (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.