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. WP:SSEFAR does not override WP:GNG, WP:ORGDEPTH, and Wikipedia's other policies and guidelines. Kurykh (talk) 05:11, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lavender Greens[edit]

Lavender Greens (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)

Contested prod. Rationale for deletion was "Absolutely no indication of meeting WP:GNG let alone WP:ORGDEPTH" IronGargoyle (talk) 18:26, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - it's not notable necessarily because it's part of the Green Party of the US. It is, however, notable for the same reason the Log Cabin Republicans, GOProud, and the Stonewall Democrats are per WP:SSEFAR. Me-123567-Me (talk) 18:32, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not true. One organisation is not inherently notable just because a similar organisations is. Each organisation must meet WP:GNG and WP:ORGDEPTH independently. AusLondonder (talk) 23:21, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:SSEFAR - "Non-fiction literature, such as encyclopedias, is expected to be internally consistent. As such, arguing in favor of consistency among Wikipedia articles is not inherently wrong–it is to be preferred." Me-123567-Me (talk) 23:42, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You have cited a dubious section of a dubious essay. The first line clarifies "This essay is not a standard reply that can be hurled against anyone you disagree with". The very section you cite states "Only when the precedent is itself in conflict with policy, guidelines or common sense is it wrong to argue that it should be followed elsewhere" - keeping this article conflicts obviously with crucial policy such as WP:GNG and WP:ORGDEPTH. AusLondonder (talk) 22:06, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Notability is not inherited from the Green Party of the United States nor is it inherited from other (genuinely notable) LGBT political groups. Fails WP:ORGDEPTH as it has not "been the subject of significant coverage in secondary sources". Fails the basic criteria at WP:GNG AusLondonder (talk) 23:21, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. AusLondonder (talk) 23:21, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. AusLondonder (talk) 23:23, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. AusLondonder (talk) 23:24, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. AusLondonder (talk) 23:25, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. No significant coverage, not notable. There's more published about fresh lavender greens as a salad vegetable than Lavender Greens as a political organization. Did you know lavender has many uses for baking and cooking? Jack N. Stock (talk) 00:30, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep Weak Merge into Green Party of the United States#Caucusesas per Me-123567-Me; WP:SSEFAR may be a weak argument but I'm inclined to support it. J947 00:45, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per WP:PROMO and because this group has not garnered sufficient attention in secondary sources, here: [1] for example, is a gNews search, showing 6 hits in 7 years - and 2 ouut of the 6 are salad recipes. It's just not enough.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:52, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:SSEFAR. --TM 16:13, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep I think there's decent enough Gbooks results: here, here, here... not great coverage I'll grant you but enough that I think we're looking at a historically notable group. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:07, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:14, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Shawn, I always take your comments seriously, so I ran a JSTOR search and got only a single hit. It reads: "As an ecofeminist member of the Green Party, I had listened to the distress of Lavender Greens who felt alienated by our premature presidential candidate, Ralph Nader, whose cavalier responses to questions about queer rights undermined the four pillars of the Green..." (Greta Gaard, “Toward a Queer Ecofeminism.” New Perspectives on Environmental Justice: Gender, Sexuality, and Activism, Edited by RACHEL STEIN, Rutgers University Press, 2004, pp. 21–44, www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt5hj8sn.6.) That + the book hits are just so slight. Considering that this is the overlap of gay rights and Green Party, two of the publishingest groups of activists in the world, finding so little is a confirmation that this group is not notable. Even worse, the sources are such brief mentions that they enable us to do little more than source the fact that it exists, existing is not notability.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:28, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, it was sort of a leap of faith on my part, thinking there might be more that I couldn't find. This one, the one that we can't preview, sounded like it might be the most promising -- but then we know from the index it can't be more than a single page. Strikethrough my weak keep: could we redirect somewhere, leaving a categorized redirect as an LGBT green group? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:59, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• It is already listed in a subhead Caucuses of Green Party of the United States, where it can stay since none of the Green Party caucuses are bluelinked. It can't go to List of LGBT rights organizations because it's a formal list.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:51, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment It is intriguing that two out of the three keep advocates have offered absolutely no policy-based argument (or any argument at all) to support their case. AusLondonder (talk) 22:08, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  @AusLondonder: I don't understand; all three keeps are based on WP:SSEFAR. J947 02:45, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  The same argument used for deletion in other AfDs – WP:OSE. Very poor argument for keep, really no argument at all. You're saying: "this isn't notable, but look over there!" Jack N. Stock (talk) 02:56, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Can't put it any better than Jack N. Stock has. AusLondonder (talk) 03:09, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In this case, consistency is a good thing. Me-123567-Me (talk) 03:20, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Let's use your logic. Say the World Socialist Party of the United States starts an LGBT group. Is your argument that it is inherently notable because the Democratic LGBT group is? Where do we draw this arbitrary line since we're disregarding WP:ORGDEPTH and WP:GNG? AusLondonder (talk) 03:54, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would hope we would include it. However, I think a very simple criteria can be applied - has the party run a candidate for President. Seems to be a standard at many state levels. Me-123567-Me (talk) 03:58, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm inclusionist and I don't think one should be created. That it is a official LGBT group of a party should definitely not be considered inherent notability. However, I do believe that, as Me-123567-Me said, if the party runs a candidate for president, I would vote 'Keep' at an AfD for it. I also think that if it is an official LGBT group of the four major parties (Democratic, Republican, Libertarian, or Green), I would also vote 'Keep'. J947 04:11, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's convenient. Last I heard, there were two major parties in the US, but you say there are four. Maybe there are three? Or five? Why not all the parties that named a Presidential candidate in 2016:

Constitution Party

Party of Socialism and Liberation

Reform Party

Socialist Party

Socialist Workers Party

and several others?

Or we could go further back:

Taxpayers Party

Natural Law Party

New Alliance Party

Communist Party

Labor Party

and so on.

So, LGBT groups of two major parties? Ten major parties? Why four, specifically? Jack N. Stock (talk) 04:39, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Jacknstock: It was just my example; I still think that there are two, but I was just using those four as my thoughts on the matter, and as the parties that received over one percent of the vote at the last presidential election. J947 04:48, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think even 1% is arbitrary (especially as President Trump says 2% of the vote was illegal, and surely he would know), but OK, Stein got 1.06% of the vote if that's the rule of thumb. It's casting a broad net to claim that makes Lavender Greens notable, though, because notability is not inherited and, even if it was, Lavender Greens are barely mentioned in the will. Jack N. Stock (talk) 04:58, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps 1% and ran someone for Pres in the last 10 years? Me-123567-Me (talk) 05:03, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It just occurred to me that a group called GLBTIQ Illegal Voters would be more than notable based on the previous position (representing the "lavender" component of (allegedly) ~2% of voters), and someone should start that organization. Jack N. Stock (talk) 05:13, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the Deletion alerts! at WikiProject Green Politics. Me-123567-Me (talk) 17:18, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: The article claims that "members have served in elected office". This is uncited. Who were these elected officeholders? If we can't find them then at minimum that sentence needs to be removed, and that raises questions for the article as a whole. If we can find them that strengthens the case for notability. Also, for those voting delete, do you think Outright Libertarians also needs to go? The two seem identical in terms of notability to me in that both are the LGBTQA organizations of America's two middling parties that mirror similar entities in the two major parties. So if you want to delete one consistency would seem to call for deleting the other also. As to this page's fate I'm undecided and will be swayed by the answers to these two questions. --HighFlyingFish (talk) 18:57, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Green_Party_of_the_United_States#Caucuses. No significant independent coverage in WP:RS. The one linked reference is to the hosted blog section of Huffington Post from a person connected to the caucus. All searches turn up are social media and web pages for the organization or its affiliates. There is no indication of notability separate from the parent organization, so it should be redirected to the parent article. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:47, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • As implied above, could be a disambiguation page to include Lavandula#Culinary use. Jack N. Stock (talk) 21:39, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Don't be silly. There are, of course, Australian Greens (a major political party), but nobody confuses them with salad and there is no need of a disambiguation page in such cases.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:29, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Disambiguation is for articles that warrant stand-alone inclusion. Eggishorn is saying that this group doesn't warrant inclusion, so Redirect is appropriate. Tapered (talk) 03:42, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• When I first searched for news on "Lavender Greens" there was more about the herb than the caucus, but that was no longer the case when I looked yesterday. Still nothing substantial about the caucus, though. Jack N. Stock (talk) 03:16, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If your googling or binging, it's possible that the search engine changed the order in which results appeared because it has data based on your clicks and other searches showing that you're interested in the caucus. The caucus was also the top result for me, but I've been poking around this page for long enough that my search and click history also isn't that of a "naive" user. --HighFlyingFish (talk) 04:35, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - not enough in-depth coverage to warrant a stand-alone article. No issue with a redirect to the Green Party of the U.S. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 23:53, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• So for delete/merge supporters, should Outright Libertarians also be deleted or merged and if not why not? --HighFlyingFish (talk) 00:56, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• No, because it has got several reliable sources. J947 18:13, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:SSEFAR. Me-123567-Me (talk) 03:47, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect To Green Party of the United States. The sources are reliable, BUT they're 'in-house.' The search tools produce only a couple of mentions, nothing close to a dedicated article, etc., so it fails notability. Since it is a part of a notable organization, and its sources are reliable, it warrants a redirect. Tapered (talk) 03:31, 27 February 2017 (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.