Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oregon Progressive 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 keep. There is (rough) consensus that the article is notable enough to be kept. (non-admin closure) MrClog (talk) 17:19, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oregon Progressive 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)

Party that existed only to serve as a ballot access channel for Ralph Nader’s 2008 presidential campaign. Sources are almost exclusively to self-published party sources. Since 2008, the party has had barely any activity. It has no substantial, non-trivial coverage from reliable sources. Any useful information can be folded to the Ralph Nader campaign article. Toa Nidhiki05 15:31, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:53, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:53, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:53, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment it is inaccurate to state that it "has had barely any activity". Just look at the Google News hits. The party's spokesperson is quoted heavily in this story about campaign contributions, for example.--TM 20:49, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the article is poorly sourced, yes, but enough reliable independent secondary coverage exists to get it past WP:GNG/WP:NCORP, though I admit it's a rather borderline article. [1] [2] SportingFlyer T·C 22:32, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
weak Keep arguably enough gNews hits [3] for this tiny party to scrape past WP:GNG by the skin of it's teeth. But note that some of this news hits are for older "progressive" parties, some are trivial, and the sources now in the article consist of 1 dead link, links ot the govt agency that monitors elections, and to the party itself. Woefully inadequate sourcing.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:29, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. There is enough sourcing to keep and improve rather than delete.--TM 00:01, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The original Oregon Progressive Party was notable in its own right. See BLANKENSHIP, WARREN M. progressives and the Progressive Party in Oregon, 1906-1916, ProQuest Dissertations Publishing, 1966.--TM 23:50, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've boldly removed that since it doesn't actually have any link to the current Progressive Party (which was founded as the Peace Party) and since it doesn't claim common heritage AFAIK. If that party is independently notable you can make a page for it. Toa Nidhiki05 00:25, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've boldly restored the information. Whether they have a common link or not, the party shares the name of a historic party with ample sourcing.--TM 00:51, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Let's take this to the talk page. It's not the same party (this party wasn't founded as the Oregon Progressive Party and doesn't claim a common history), so I don't see a reason it should share a page. In fact that party is actually part of the Progressive Party (United States, 1912), which is not related at all to this, so if it should be mentioned anywhere it goes there. Toa Nidhiki05 00:58, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It is quite logical that someone looking for the history of progressive parties in Oregon would be interested in both iterations of the same party. Whether it claims lineage or not (I don't think either of us know for certain) is irrelevant. It is senseless to ignore one Oregon Progressive Party when sources clearly exist. Arguably, that version of the OPP probably has a better claim to notability than the current version, though I think both are notable.--TM 01:01, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'd highly suggest you self-revert since, according to process (where you added content and I reverted, my reversion of your content means you go to the talk page. You're actually the one edit warring here. Toa Nidhiki05 01:03, 9 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.