Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Movement for a People's 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. ✗plicit 06:39, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Movement for a People's Party (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Seems of negligible importance, with lack of significant third-party coverage available from a web search. SecretName101 (talk) 05:23, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. SecretName101 (talk) 05:23, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. SecretName101 (talk) 05:23, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Unlike the Yang gang party, this one has had quite significant coverage over the span of several months. Even a trip down recent Google news articles shows independent coverage. Curbon7 (talk) 06:05, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Curbon7: What search queries are you using? "Movement for a People's Party" hardly turns up any results about this party on either Google or Bing. SecretName101 (talk) 23:14, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • My main concern is that internet searches showed little coverage on this party. If I am wrong, and their is more broad coverage than I could find, than I am fine with retaining it. SecretName101 (talk) 23:15, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:44, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: There are reliable sources with WP:SIGCOV of the subject. Multi7001 (talk) 15:39, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Same reasons as Curbon7 saying. Also the Party's Florida chapter is the first one to achieve ballot access. As seen here in this link. Chad The Goatman (talk) 17:35, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: More than enough in-depth sources to pass WP:ORG. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 19:51, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Per everyone above. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 19:53, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Per all above. Mt.FijiBoiz (talk) 20:38, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Per all above. Vif12vf/Tiberius (talk) 23:47, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. There are enough in-depth sources for establishing notability, passes WP:ORG.Brayan ocaner (talk) 00:44, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, reluctantly. This article has always smacked of excited boosterism and overeager editing to make it seem bigger or further advanced than it was/is, but it appears to have actual coverage and hasn't just evaporated as I expected it would a couple of years ago. There's too much reliance on primary sources (MPP website), but I have to admit there appears to be enough other coverage to keep the article. — JohnFromPinckney (talk / edits) 06:35, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. As Chad The Goatman stated, because the party has officially attained ballot access in at least one state, there is enough of a reason to keep this article. Mannysoloway (talk) 15:09, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I cant see any problem with the article to be deleted·Misasory (talk) 14:29, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The article suffers from a dearth of sources, which tracks with the dearth of Google search results. Right now, the works cited page is comprised predominantly of the MPP's own website (with many other sources being organizers' platforms), and Wikipedia articles aren't supposed to be based primarily on primary sources. JebtheTree (talk) 22:05, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your second sentence is irrelevant, as deletion is not clean-up. If sources exist, even if not used in the article, they are still valid for the establishment of notability. Curbon7 (talk) 03:32, 13 October 2021 (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.