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 speedy keep. No proper rationale, one of several disruptive nominations. Fences&Windows 20:01, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Green Party of New Jersey (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)

Article fails to establish notability. Me-123567-Me (talk) 04:37, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The article makes appropriate claims of notability for the state political party, with reliable and verifiable sources. The article is one 40 state Green Party organizations included across the nation in Category:Green Party of the United States by state. Alansohn (talk) 04:52, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Alan Sohn. Passes WP:N with reliable sources.--TM 04:56, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:18, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:18, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:19, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Just because a pary carries the name "Green Party" does NOT make it inheriently notable. Me-123567-Me (talk) 16:45, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Per WP:ORGSIG: "No company or organization is considered inherently notable. No organization is exempt from this requirement, no matter what kind of organization it is, including schools. If the individual organization has received no or very little notice from independent sources, then it is not notable simply because other individual organizations of its type are commonly notable or merely because it exists (see "If it's not notable", below). "Notability" is not synonymous with "fame" or "importance." No matter how "important" editors may personally believe an organization to be, it should not have a stand-alone article in Wikipedia unless reliable sources independent of the organization have discussed it." Me-123567-Me (talk) 16:58, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Struck duplicate !vote from nominator; the nomination is considered as your !vote. However, feel free to comment all you'd like. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:56, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy keep, speedy close, and sanction the nom, who is engaged in an apparently politically motivated deletion jihad. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 20:50, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, clearly notable statewide political party. Article could use more sources independent of the party, but adequate to keep. (And by the way, although I know that OTHERSTUFFEXISTS arguments carry no weight in AfD's, it is interesting to compare this article to New Jersey Libertarian Party. I wouldn't favor deleting that one either, but if one of them requires attention, it is not this one.) Neutron (talk) 22:38, 3 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.