Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arizona Green 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 Snow Keep. Never close this early but outcome's blatantly obvious here, Notability is obviously going to be judged differently on each article so this bundle is rather silly!, Anyway obvious Keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 02:33, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Arizona Green Party

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

Nominating multiple Green Party articles for deletion because they show no claim to notability failing WP:ORG, and fail to properly cite sources. Delete Me-123567-Me (talk) 21:05, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep, block and topic ban disruptive nominator, who is on a weird political jihad with no grounding in deletion policy. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 21:10, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep purely disruptive nonsense. oknazevad (talk) 21:14, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep articles are sourced. NE Ent 21:22, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep - article is sourced and notable. Magnolia677 (talk) 21:31, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - In this case it is not appropriate to add multiple articles for deletion. Each state has a unique article. Magnolia677 (talk) 21:33, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable topic, even if the articles need improvements. Dimadick (talk) 22:38, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all passes WP:ORG.--TM 23:21, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 23:23, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all. There are plenty of sources to substantiate notability for each of these articles. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 01:14, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Reluctant keep all. How do we force the author/s to reference them properly? — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 01:19, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- You remove the unferenerenced material, but when I do that someone seems to revert me. Me-123567-Me (talk) 02:01, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Green Party of Hawaii because the sources show notability; the party has elected several officials in the past (disclosure: I created that page in 2004). Procedural keep the others, because (as Magnolia677 correctly pointed out) these are not suitable for a multiple AfD, since each affiliate has a different level of notability. Note that even if not notable in themselves, each of these articles would be a good merge/redirect to the national party. Neutrality^talk 01:41, 4 January 2016 (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.