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 Constitution Party (United States). Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 13:37, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Constitution Party of Indiana

[edit]

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

State affiliate of minor US political party. Article says nothing about the state party other than that it exists, cites no independent sources, gives no indication that state affiliate is notable per WP:ORG. NawlinWiki (talk) 20:46, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Constitution Party (United States). Can't find much of anything in terms of reliable sources that discuss the Indiana branch specifically. Nwlaw63 (talk) 21:06, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:39, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:39, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:40, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I realize full well that I have a minority perspective here, but it is my earnest belief that all political parties, their leaders, and their youth sections regardless of size or ideology are public entities worthy of encyclopedic coverage. This is the sort of thing that encyclopedias SHOULD include. That said, this is as minimal as anything I can recall having seen: essentially the name of the state chairman and a website. A little actual content would be helpful. All the same, I believe this page should be treated like we treat pro baseball players who have played one MLB game, verifiable villages, high schools, roads, rivers, and so forth and should be retained if existence can be verified. Carrite (talk) 00:16, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Nwlaw. This article doesn't provide much information about the state party -- the party supports the national party's platform, its presidential tickets are identical to the national party's presidential tickets, etc. If this party comes to have an impact on state politics that gets covered in reliable independent sources, the article can be re-created at that time. But right now, the most notable things about this party is that it's a branch of the Constitution Party, and it's in Indiana, and that's not enough to warrant a separate article for the state party. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:34, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, notability is not inherited from being a component of a notable party. This is different from covering all political parties: we're not talking about getting rid of an article about the party as a whole. A good comparison would be the various deletion discussions in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2009 June 18 for small Wikipedias: we should treat Indiana's branch of the Constitution party the same way we treated the Wu Wikipedia and the Friulian Wikipedia. Nyttend (talk) 05:12, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm OK with the redirect as proposed by Nwlaw63. NawlinWiki (talk) 16:15, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Carrite. Some other New York state parties have separate articles. Bearian (talk) 01:12, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:58, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment To those voting keep: can you produce abundant reliable sources about the Indiana branch of the party in particular? No one wants to delete the main article about the Constitution party, but that doesn't guarantee an article for each of the 50 states unless there is sufficient reliable sourcing to support it. I couldn't find this sourcing - that's why I voted to delete. Nwlaw63 (talk) 20:53, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 08:03, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Redirect~~ to Constitution Party (United States) Still here, still voting redirect to main aritcle, based on that there appear to exactly zero reliable sources discussing the Indiana branch of the party. Nwlaw63 (talk) 19:57, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment You can't !vote twice. Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 21:51, 19 January 2012 (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.