Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reform Party of California

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 no consensus. –MuZemike 06:00, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reform Party of California

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

Non-notable local branch of minor party; no evidence of notability or even continued operation, nor of prior significance. Orange Mike | Talk 04:17, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for the above reasons. Eeekster (talk) 04:18, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above.--Sky Attacker the legend reborn... 04:34, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Statewide is not local, and worth listing on the basis of having been notable in the 1995-1998 period. Once notable, always notable. See the Google News archive hits for this organization here -- Eastmain (talk) 18:12, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions.
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 01:48, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per Eastmain.--Epeefleche (talk) 11:49, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And per this result.--Epeefleche (talk) 11:15, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect and merge to Reform Party of the United States of America. This has been done with state chapters of other parties when there simply isn't enough for a stand alone article. Niteshift36 (talk) 22:42, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you explain what a merge would entail here? There is currently no treatment of state parties as organizational units on Reform Party of the United States of America, so I have trouble seeing how you envision a merge would be executed. If it means adding a section for California, Michigan, etc., then we might as well keep this as a stand-alone article. Avram (talk) 02:47, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I only suggested merge on one of them. The others a straight redirect. 2 of the three have really done very little in their history. I'd be more inclined to simply do a single section about state chapter activities and put them in there. Frankly, most of the chapters have done little of signifigance. The article on the Texas one was just redirected. I'm going with redirect simply to save as a possible search term. Otherwise, I'd choose delete.Niteshift36 (talk) 18:03, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Sounds workable. Most of the information in this article is incidentally related to the California party and could be merged safely.Avram (talk) 00:48, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 04:36, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Reform Party of the United States of America per the above. Avram (talk) 00:48, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep:

Why? I first found the Reform Party by following the nationally broadcast website link and communicated with the National Secretary from Connecticut. She eventually directed me to my local chapter here in San Diego where I was informed that the major part of the Reform movement began as UWSA (United We Stand America) here in San Diego. I went to the 1997 Convention and was hooked, later becoming the CA State Convention Secretary several times.

This entry is a historic reference to the Reform movement partly because the California Reform Party has always held the largest share of active members. Although the numbers have dwindled, the Party continues to this day. We had a State Conference just prior to Christmas 2009. -- Rob Spahitz, RPCA, San Diego. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rspahitz (talk • contribs) 05:27, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Great! Can you provide some reliable sources and add updated information on the role of this party and its history? The issue here is that editors have had trouble finding much verifiable, third-party evidence of the California party's importance. If there are other print or online sources to strengthen this article, please do add them. Avram (talk) 05:26, 29 December 2009 (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.