Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Constitutional Action Party
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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 of the debate was DELETE. Owen× ☎ 00:18, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
A search of the archives of 1500+ newspapers using the Newsbank database finds one mention for this party. The article was on obscure third parties and expended no more effort than quoting from party websites--should be noted that this party no longer even has a website. The "party" probably has one member and is not involved in any visible political activity. By its own admission: "has had virtually no success since its 1995 founding. It has no local chapters anywhere, no candidates for office, and no prospect of running a presidential candidate. . . . There is little to no prospect that we [sic] will be able to hold a convention anytime soon. . . . Only some sort of economic or other catastrophe will produce conditions favorable to the emergence of a new party." delete Lotsofissues 02:27, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- According to the summary, this Party has had one candidate its founder Frank Creel who ran for Congress in Virginia in 2002 see [1]. Apparently, his campaign had so much impact that the Washington Post thought his opponent had run unopposed see [2]. No evidence that it has many other members outside Creel's family. Delete unless there is some evidence that it has influence outside Creel's family. Capitalistroadster 02:43, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Vanity +/- delusions of grandeur. Ifnord 03:02, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as vanity. PJM 03:09, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral for now. The statesman's website [3] indicates that he received endorsement of several other third parties with some significance, if only historical interest, including the Independent American Party (a Western offshoot of George Wallace's third party) and the Constitution Party (United States), founded by Howard Phillips, chairman of the Conservative Coalition. These might speak more to the notability of the candidate than his chosen vehicle. Not convinced, at least, that this is vanity. Is there somewhere it could be merged? Smerdis of Tlön 05:04, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I'm not sure of the qualifications for deletion for this kind of thing. If these were well established, then this would be an easy vote. If it says, for example, that every legitimate political party should be included, then this is an automatic keep. However, if it says that there is a certain membership requirement, then this would be an automatic delete. This kind of thing makes me think of Wikipedia: Deletion reform and perhaps we should clean up how we do this. In my mind, personally, all political parties are legitimate, so long as they have ever stood for office, which this party has. But that doesn't mean it meets wikipedia requirements. Zordrac 05:09, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I think that the only policy that really applies in such cases is that Wikipedia is not paper. AFAIK there are no criteria for noteworthiness of minor political parties like there are for minor bands. A political party that actually fields a candidate has met the basic good-faith test. Any political party, however quixotic, is inherently worthier than a garage band. (And if popular appeal measured by sales and chart success are the criteria, would Milton Babbitt make the cut?) Smerdis of Tlön 05:34, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep if that's the criteria, its pretty clear. Zordrac 07:15, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I think that the only policy that really applies in such cases is that Wikipedia is not paper. AFAIK there are no criteria for noteworthiness of minor political parties like there are for minor bands. A political party that actually fields a candidate has met the basic good-faith test. Any political party, however quixotic, is inherently worthier than a garage band. (And if popular appeal measured by sales and chart success are the criteria, would Milton Babbitt make the cut?) Smerdis of Tlön 05:34, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I've nothing against obscure political parties (even Jesus-worriers), but we delete bands that haven't had a certain amount of success because they're a form of vanity-by-proxy for their members. Same for books published on vanity presses. Self-confessedly tiny political parties shouldn't be treated differently. And no, political parties aren't 'worthier' than bands. Quite apart from the POV issues which that value judgement implies, a few guys (if it's more than one) that rant about Jesus clearly aren't worthier than a few students abusing a guitar and singing about how cheerleaders won't go out with them. --Last Malthusian 09:58, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Good points there. But there is a thing that in Australia we have 2 very obscure parties, both with basically 1 member each, that are probably the 2 most well known parties in Australia - because everyone hates them. One is the Fred Nile party and the other is One Nation, which is basically just a dummy spit for Pauline Hanson. Nobody ever votes for either of them. Fred Nile is a jesus warrior who says some of the most ridiculous things ever heard of, while Pauline Hanson is a racist who thinks that aborigines should be "sent home" (they are the natives of Australia). So I don't think that we can absolutely say that 1 member parties are not relevant. Oh, and that's not to mention our little 1-person greenie, Bob Brown, who is seen as probably the most ethical politician in Australia. However, Bob Brown, unlike the other 2, actually got elected (and keeps getting elected). I know, this is probably different (slightly) but I don't know if we can say such things absolutely. Zordrac 10:43, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Um, Zordrac, we're talking about one member (as in regular party member), not one elected parliamentarian. That's a completely different kettle of fish. Ambi 11:12, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Ambi 11:12, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak delete. This party is listed on the Guide to American Political Parties at Politics1.com. However, what the guide says about the party doesn't lead me to think that the party is viable: "CAP founder Frank Creel wrote Politics1 in January 1999 that the CAP 'has had virtually no success since its 1995 founding. It has no local chapters anywhere, no candidates for office and no prospect of running a presidential candidate in 2000. There is little to no prospect that we will be able to hold a convention anytime soon. ... Only some sort of economic or other catastrophe will produce conditions favorable to the emergence of a new party.'" That's the party founder's own assessment of his own party, albeit some years out of date. --Metropolitan90 18:05, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Virtually no success, virtually no candidates, virtually no article. RasputinAXP talk contribs 21:54, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Can't Decide. I do think that tiny political parties should get a lot more slack than tiny bands. I hate to delete any political party article written in good faith. This party is so tiny, though... maybe it should go. But then maybe some researcher sometime somewhere might find info on this party useful... Herostratus 08:11, 3 December 2005 (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.
