Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Centrist Party (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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:11, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Centrist Party (United States)

Centrist Party (United States) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Non-notable organization. Claims to be a US party. It isn't even an option on Search by Party http://www.fec.gov/finance/disclosure/advcomsea.shtml at the FEC site. - OCNative 06:13, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

The FEC shows it's a non-authorized, unqualified party. Minor parties, like the Green Party and the Libertarian Party show up as authorized and qualified. OCNative 00:38, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

This party isn't even fully formed, according to the article: "The Centrist Party...[is] recruiting a national official advisory board who will steer the party towards its first convention, where official party bylaws will be adopted...The national platform of the Centrist Party is under development." Maybe when it has a board, it could be an article. OCNative 00:43, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

• Neutral: this article is frought with problems (see Talk:Centrist Party (United States)), and I am not completely convinced of its notability. That said, we should have articles on third parties that have even a small amount of popular support (the counter to that being Wikipedia is not for things thought up after school one day). So if additional references can be provided, we may be able to salvage the article. Michaelbusch 06:17, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
• KeepImport007 09:07, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
• keep it looks like a valid party to me--E tac 10:54, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete until it starts showing up on ballots. Gazpacho 11:34, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Keep but cleanup citations. Guidelines for notability start with articles on the subject in multiple verifiable secondary sources, and this article links six different newspaper articles on the subject at the bottom. Okay, so they aren't the largest newspapers in America, but while one might quibble with the college newspapers (justifiably), the Eureka Reporter and OK City Journal Record are (as far as I know) genuine regional newspapers. No criticism of the nom though, while I'd say this article passes notability, it's doing so by the skin of it's teeth. -Markeer 13:21, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per User:Markeer. Also, the party does have a listing with the FEC (search for Centrist Party here). -- Black Falcon 18:49, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete it isn't that hard to get registered as a party. What it is hard to do is get on a ballot and earn votes. I say delete until the party actually gets on a ballot for something. State Rep, County Commissioner, Dogcatcher, anything. Right now the article is nothing more than spam for the party. Montco 00:23, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep and clean up, press coverage indicates notability which may or not may be a footnote in history -- yet it exists Alf photoman 00:40, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, tentatively. The novelty of this party's appeal stems from the absence of a narrow-issue focus (e.g., Greens), extremist orientations (e.g., Libertarians), and stated alignment on specific wedge issues (such as abortion). This makes the party a very odd creature on the bipolar American political scene, where the Democrats and Republicans use wedge issues to squelch "wasted" voting on other parties in much the same way adults use distraction to quiet petulant toddlers screaming at their mothers. In the highly unlikely event the Centrist Party ever begins to amass a voter constituency, it will face a barrage of incumbent-party rhetoric (here on Wikipedia and elsewhere) aimed at nipping it in the bud, as a party of its type poses the only conceivable threat to the two-party system. In theory, a centrist party could gain the broad support required to impose democracy on the U.S. (i.e., a multiparty system with proportional voting as a minimum standard). Because of the likelihood of suspect motives underlying "delete" recommendations, Wikipedia should adopt a protective attitude for now. The article should remain for a couple of years until this new party has failed to thrive; it should then be considered for deletion if any surge in interest was historically insignificant.--87.49.44.157 01:29, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 22:09, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment I'll reply here. Based on newspaper coverage cited by others, the Centrist Party has arguably attained a minimum level of notability to warrant inclusion in Wikipedia. However, this notability is temporal in nature: if the party grows, its notability will, too, but if it fails to do so, the currency of interest in it will pass, and it will fade into obscurity, joining countless others. I haven't "predicted" its demise, only noted that it, like any fledgling political party, has only the slimmest chance of success.--87.52.109.121 14:34, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

• Keep per Black Falcon; seems nomination may be in error. MalikCarr 02:59, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per Markeer. Passes notability, certainly - if six external reports aren't sufficient, what is? Well written and complete article. Very nicely done. » K i G O E | talk 05:05, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Guns and Dope Party has no entry at the fec. Yet there is an article for them. Centrist party needs to be listed here [1]. Or Centrist party proves they are an actual party to stay put. --ⅮⅭⅭⅬⅩⅩⅤⅠⅠ 05:49, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep We needn't be judging the uitimate significance--the current information is sufficient for NDGG 04:30, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

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.