Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reform Party of New Jersey (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 redirect to Reform Party (New Jersey). The subject is already covered in the other article, making this an unnecessary fork. A cursory glance seems to show that page seems to be adequately sourced which should address the concerns of the "delete" votes in this discussion. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:34, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reform Party of New Jersey[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)

Non-notable state branch of a notable federal party. Fails to meet WP:SIGCOV and WP:GNG. Toa Nidhiki05 14:15, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Toa Nidhiki05 14:15, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Toa Nidhiki05 14:15, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:02, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've removed the uncited material (i.e. 90%) of it and rebuilt it based on what I found from doing WP:BEFORE type searching. CT55555 (talk) 17:09, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Worth noting that the Patch source only mentions the party's membership, and the other added source is to the party itself. Toa Nidhiki05 17:20, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I've commented rather than voted, because I'm not saying this is enough. I'm hoping that my efforts might motivate others to consider improvement, if possible, as a preferable option over deleting. CT55555 (talk) 17:40, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Remains unclear what the relationship is to New Jersey Reform Party, but that could be explored and potentially merged if indeed there is one.Djflem (talk) 13:16, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per the above. An editor has attempted to locate significant coverage in reliable sources and been unable to do so. AusLondonder (talk) 18:18, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per Nom and commendable efforts by user CT55555. Would not object to a merge to a related article as an WP:ATD. -- Otr500 (talk) 00:00, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ per https://caselaw.findlaw.com/nj-superior-court-appellate-division/1085141.html Djflem (talk) 07:35, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Djflem: Can you elaborate? AusLondonder (talk) 12:58, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

From source:

"Plaintiff Reform Party of New Jersey is best known through H. Ross Perot's campaign for the Presidency in 1992 and 1996. Perot received 15.6 percent of the popular vote in New Jersey in 1992 and 8.52 percent of the popular vote in New Jersey in 1996.

The Reform Party focuses on campaign finance and election reform in order to open the political system to new voices, and on fiscal reform issues directed at ending deficit spending. In 2000, the Reform Party presented Pat Buchanan as its candidate for President, Pat DiNizio as its candidate for U.S. Senator, and several candidates for the House of Representatives. The Reform Party of New Jersey has never presented a candidate for Governor or State Senate.

The Reform Party had two Assembly candidates in 1997 who received 0.04 percent of the total votes cast. In 1998, the Reform Party ran two congressional candidates in New Jersey. These candidates earned 0.09 percent of the votes. In the 1999 general election, the Reform Party had one Assembly candidate and two other candidates using similar designations.

The Reform Party presently has approximately 275 enrolled members in New Jersey. These dues-paying members hold elections for officers and organize a steering committee at an annual convention..."

Djflem (talk) 16:40, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I fail to see the relevance of the court judgement to this AfD discussion, although the bit about having 275 enrolled members and their two state candidates winning 0.04% of the vote may be helpful to the discussion. AusLondonder (talk) 18:13, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The party was among plaintiffs in a case which eventually brought about changes in state election laws and ballot access. That's relevant. What continues to remain unclear is the relationship to [[New Jersey Reform Party, where similar claims are made. Are they one and the same? Djflem (talk) 18:25, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Being a plaintiff in a lawsuit is not remotely evidence of notability. Notice your summary doesn't even mention them having any notable activity outside of Ross Perot's federal campaign, and it's not even a reliable, independent source - it's just a court document. Toa Nidhiki05 19:46, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What did you come up with New Jersey Reform Party and the Reform Party of New Jersey, which certainly you explored when doing a proper one BEFORE for this nomination? Djflem (talk) 21:40, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Literally nothing. That's why I nominated this. And the lack of sources from you proves me right. Toa Nidhiki05 01:28, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Then how do you explain away this:

"Welcome to the New Jersey Reform Party". newjersey.reformparty.org. Archived from the original on 31 October 2000. Retrieved 13 April 2022., which as a header says New Jersey Reform Party, but then as an address offers Reform Party of New Jersey?

Benjamin, Pat, The Perot Legacy: A New Political Path, 2013, ISBN 9781614484738, which uses both names? Djflem (talk) 05:28, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Court rulings are certainly reliable sources.

COUNCIL OF ALTERNATIVE POLITICAL PARTIES CAPP v. New Jersey Republican State Committee and New Jersey Democratic State Committee, Intervenors-Appellants, A-5698-99T5, A-5701-99T5.1 (Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division September 10, 2001)., which states:

20. Plaintiff Reform Party is incorporated as two distinct organizations. The Reform Party, a New Jersey Non-Profit Corporation (“Reform Party Corporation”) has licensed the use of its name to its membership affiliate, the Third Party Membership organization, which has come to be known as the Reform Party of New Jersey (“Reform Party”).

21. Both the Reform Party Corporation and Reform Party are organized for political purposes under Title 15A of the New Jersey Nonprofit Corporation Law. Djflem (talk) 04:46, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A court document is a primary source, not secondary. It's irrelevant per WP:SIGCOV. AusLondonder (talk) 07:53, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:PRIMARY describes the use of primary sources; Wikipedia:Verifiability is important for facts and in making determination in AFD. Verifiability is crucial here since it's clear that there are two articles which seem to be discussing the same topic (Reform Party of New Jersey and New Jersey Reform Party), which has not been addressed.Djflem (talk) 11:38, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I would just point out you said keep per this court document. I'm saying the court document does not assist in demonstrating notability. AusLondonder (talk) 12:04, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Concerns about notability would arise after verifiability has been established. Djflem (talk) 06:31, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect>>>>Reform Party (New Jersey).Djflem (talk) 06:35, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with this. 275 members out of a population of over 9 million is pathetic and does not show notability. Still less a 0.04% election result. The party deserves note as the (unimpressive) successor of the previous Reform Party, but not a standalone page. Nwhyte (talk) 16:12, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.