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. Star Mississippi 13:23, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A Connecticut Party (2021)

[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)

Hyper-local minor party which failed to win any seats in its election. Some minor buzz in local media due to its name, but this party is just not notable. Thoroughly fails WP:GNG, and is just a local oddity due to it hijacking the name of a long-dead party.

A side note, there has been a concerted effort to hijack the original and notable A Connecticut Party article to soapbox for this party (not by Scu ba, who has been a genuine good-faith editor here, but by others, including some affiliated with the party). At best, this should be a minor one-sentence mention on the actual party's article. Curbon7 (talk) 01:46, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Conservatism, Politics, and Connecticut. Curbon7 (talk) 01:46, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I understand this grievance, its just that I didn't want to talk about the new party on the old parties page. Maybe we should wait to delete this page until after the next election. Scu ba (talk) 03:41, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Winning elections is not a requirement to meet WP:GNG, and I'm seeing reliable source coverage about the party and its history. Hartford Courant, CT Insider, and NBC are all scrupulously reliable sources, already cited in the article. --Jayron 32 18:08, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Those are all ~~WP:LOCAL~~ local news sources, perpetuating the statement that this is little more than a local curiosity. Of course something that is locally newsworthy is going to get coverage in local press. That doesn't necessarily translate to notability in a global encyclopedia. Curbon7 (talk) 18:39, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That essay says nothing about local news sources being inappropriate for notability. Literally nothing at all. If you're going to cite an essay, you could at least do so in a way that doesn't misrepresent what it says. --Jayron 32 12:37, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Stricken, didn't mean to mislead; but the rest of the statement still stands. Of course local news sources are going to cover local topics. That doesn't necessarily translate to WP:GNG. Curbon7 (talk) 14:43, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Why not? GNG states, in full, "A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." A source is not unreliable because its focus is narrow in scope or geography. Reliability has to do with fact checking, editorial control, willingness to correct mistakes, and for general reputation in its field. At no time does GNG say anything about local news being inherently unreliable, or really any less reliable than news sources that cover a broader geography as its consumer base. The entire WP:N page doesn't even mention the word "local" once. Furthermore, WP:RS wikipedia guideline on reliability of sources, makes literally no mention that a source's reliability is under suspicion merely due to the geography of its coverage. None. The word "local" shows up once on that guideline page, and it has to do with the "local whitelist" used to bypass deprecated sources. Nothing at all saying "you can't trust local news". --Jayron 32 14:54, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's a common outcome at AfD that local news coverage generally does not contribute to a subject meeting GNG. This is because local news covers local topics; the two-bit city councilman, the restaurant down the block, a new business, etc. This coverage may be significant, but it is generally routine. This is not a knock on the reliability of local news media, heck one of my GAs is constructed almost entirely on local news sources. What I see here is a local party with a quirky name getting coverage due to its part in a local election.

Additionally, while I do agree with Trainsandotherthings below regarding the Hartford Courant source in general, it actually hardly mentions the party and I don't think provides WP:SIGCOV even in a normal situation (most of the article is comprised of quotes by the founder and a history of the previous iteration with very little about the party). This CT Insider source is similar in ; same with NBC Connecticut. Curbon7 (talk) 19:27, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Hartford Courant is a major newspaper, and I don't think it's appropriate to dismiss it as "local". If it had shown up in the local section of the Courant, known as "Courant Community" I might agree with you, but that isn't the case. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 13:54, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Fair, at least. Curbon7 (talk) 14:37, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 06:41, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Redirect. to A Connecticut Party (1990) (which mentions the unrelated 2021 party). With the way Connecticut law works, this party is not able to expand outside of West Hartford (because it solely exists on the municipal level). We don't have articles on any of the other ~350 municipal political parties that exist in the state despite many of them having similar (if not more) coverage. While I understand that 338 of them are just local branches of the two larger parties, some of them aren't.
It just doesn't make sense is all I'm saying. We traditionally don't have pages about municipal parties except in some pretty notable circumstances (ie. Charter Committee, Chicago Socialist Party, etc.), and I don't know if this situation is at all comparable. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 04:53, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe we could make a new page thats something like List of municipal parties in Connecticut and list these parties with a brief notes section and move the A Connecticut Party (2021) there as a redirect? Scu ba (talk) 18:48, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Scu ba: I would very much support that and would be willing to help draft if you got that started. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 21:43, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I would support a redirect or merge of this article, but unsure on a target right now. Don't think it meets GNG by itself. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 19:18, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:29, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article fails GNG. To the one keep vote, the sources provided are local in nature and thus WP:AUD applies here. I do not feel a redirect as proposed is appropriate per WP:XY. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 17:28, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Presidentman. Stifle (talk) 12:29, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Presidentman. What coverage there is hyper-local and it fails WP:SIGCOV. scope_creep^Talk 19:01, 24 November 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.