Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Single Tax 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. (non-admin closure) Rollidan (talk) 15:57, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Single Tax Party

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

• How to contribute
• Introduction to deletion process
• Guide to deletion (glossary)
• Help, my article got nominated for deletion!

Single Tax Party (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Article was to be deleted following Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Commonwealth Land Party (United States) but either never was or was recreated in violation of policy. Toa Nidhiki05 12:34, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:39, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:39, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

• @78.26 and Graeme Bartlett: 78.26 closed the original AfD but doesn't appear to have deleted the article; Graeme Bartlett removed the AfD notice from the article without apparent explanation. I don't think another AfD is necessary here and the article should just be deleted per the previous AfD close. GoldenRing (talk) 13:13, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
  • I restored the page due to a request at WP:REFUND . It should have a record in the log of who asked for it. The previous delete was a soft delete so reversible on request. I have no opinion on whether this should be kept. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:39, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
    • • I can't see that the page was restored, because I think GoldenRing is correct, it didn't get deleted. XFDcloser has hiccups occasionally, and I'm not very good at catching it when it happens. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 04:02, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
    • Same thing happened with the American Vegetarian Party, which was similarly deleted and brought back with the justification "topic has merit". I was never notified of this. Toa Nidhiki05 01:37, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
• Keep, now it's back at AfD again and the previous Afd had no input at all. It's impossible to believe that a national party that contested two US presidential elections wouldn't be notable. Because of the difficulty of finding sources from the 1920's, I'd say this is ripe for clean-up and improvement, rather than deletion. Sionk (talk) 20:05, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

  They received only 5,000 votes (0.02%) in 1920 and I see no indication they ran for anything in 1924 or received any votes. Simply saying you ran for office does not make your party notable - you need to meet WP:ORGCRIT, which means significant, non-trivial coverage in multiple independent reliable secondary sources. Simply existing doesn’t warrant a page. Toa Nidhiki05 20:12, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

  • I'm well aware of WP:GNG, but it's recentism gone mad to hold things that existed 100 years ago to the same standards as today, with modern online news available at the click of a mouse. A little common sense is required. The CLP certainly stood in 1924 [1][2]. Sionk (talk) 21:13, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
    • To the contrary, a party that won 5,000 votes in probably not notable in general whether it existed today or 100 years ago. Toa Nidhiki05 21:23, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
• Delete- Due to lack of sources. There needs to be significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. If someone can find them, maybe I'll change my vote. Otherwise the WP:BURDEN is on the person adding the content to find the sources. Notability is not assumed to exist.--Rusf10 (talk) 23:52, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

WP:BURDEN refers to verifiability, not notability. And the article aready cites a book source and an article in Time magazine. Sionk (talk) 08:36, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Mere mentions don’t warrant an article. WP:ORGCRIT requires substantial coverage. Toa Nidhiki05 12:25, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Are they mere mentions? I can't believe how people on Wikipedia go out of their way to manufacture reasons to delete articles about anything before 1990. Well, I can't fight a one person battle, unfortunately. Sionk (talk) 19:54, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

• Keep because I found sources of varying quality. [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24]. Want more? 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 03:27, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep The previous close said plainly that WP:REFUND applies and that is what has been done. There is therefore no procedural error and so the nomination's objection is resolved. The topic is documented in detail in sources such as Others: Third-party Politics in the 1920s and the numerous clippings provided above and so so we have a reasonable start on the topic per WP:IMPERFECT, WP:NOTPAPER, WP:PRESERVE, &c. Andrew D. (talk) 09:50, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
• Keep as per new sources found above. Does anyone intend to actually improve the article?--Rusf10 (talk) 00:30, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
• Keep: No! I do not want more sources...LOL. You have won Me over. - Ret.Prof (talk) 14:37, 23 August 2019 (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.