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 Robert Anton Wilson. (non-admin closure) Alpha Quadrant ^talk 18:28, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Guns and Dope Party

[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This is a non-notable, fictional "political party." It does not seem to exist outside of Robert Anton Wilson. While Wilson is notable, the "Guns and Dope Party" is not, per WP:NOTINHERITED and WP:ORGIN. OCNative (talk) 12:33, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As nominator, I would support a redirect to Robert Anton Wilson. OCNative (talk) 02:32, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Vote to keep. Wilson is a significant figure and this is an important part of his opus Jewishprincess (talk) 21:44, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note that Jewishprincess had 5 edits before 2 June 2011, of which three were AfD discussions. OCNative (talk) 02:28, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. — Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 15:34, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. — Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 15:35, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect: to Wilson's article; it's mentioned there, and that's enough. Ravenswing 17:55, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Robert Anton Wilson, per Ravenswing.--JayJasper (talk) 18:00, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. Not notable enough on its own for an article, but might be a search term. Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:44, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep None of the redirect !votes addresses the arguments made during the first AfD that resulted in a keep. There were a number of references listed, which seemed to establish notability, and that was what the consensus appears to have been. What has changed since then that warrants overturning the past keep? Monty ₈₄₅ 16:37, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you look carefully at the sources cited to establish notability in the first AfD more than 4 years ago, the sources are all discussions of Robert Anton Wilson, rather than coverage of the party independently of Wilson. OCNative (talk) 02:28, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the references focus enough on the party that I think they are valid to use for notability. Just because they are not solely about the party does not mean they are irrelevant when considering notability. The fact that in the lead of all of them, one of the first things mentioned is the party also speaks to the recognition of the party as being worthy of note. Monty ₈₄₅ 07:06, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Of the sources provided, one is a tabloid and the other two are obituaries of Robert Anton Wilson. There are numerous obituaries of Wilson that fail to even mention the party at all, such as [1], [2], [3], and [4]. If the party he founded was so notable, shouldn't all his obituaries mention it, rather than just two? OCNative (talk) 09:46, 10 June 2011 (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.