Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Coffee party progressives

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 delete. No need to merge, as CFORK is not all that different. Consensus is to delete (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:03, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Coffee party progressives

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

Article seems somewhat promotional in its nature. Only links to anything like notability are Facebook pages, blogs, and the group's own web page - in a nutshell, primary and tertiary sources. This is not sourcing that proves notability. -- Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 05:03, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - First paragraph is a 100% unmodified Cut&Paste copyvio from a free website (which still describes itself as "temporary"). Doesn't meet Wikipedia's GNG, despite trying to capitalize off a notable group's name and logo, and appears to be an attempt to promote a Facebook group. A previous attempt by this same editor was Speedy Deleted for promotion of a non-notable group (here) more than a year ago, and there has not been any notability established since then. Xenophrenic (talk) 06:24, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Coffee Party USA. I think we could reasonably regard the Politico blog as a reliable source, but I can't find any other sources about this group, so the coverage is a bit sparse for us to have an article on it. It's probably worth a mention in the Coffee Party USA article though, and this content would work well in that article once it's copy edited and cleaned of copyvio. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 09:09, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We can regard the blog as a reliable source of Smith's opinion, yes, but I can't find any actual reporting on the matter from reliable sources of assertion of fact. After copy editing, we're left only with a mission statement and list of local Facebook pages for a non-notable Facebook group -- may I ask what content from that you would suggest adding to the Coffee Party USA article, and with what weight justification? I ask this because the creator of this CP Progressives page has just been indef blocked as a tendentious sockpuppet, and review of his socks edit history reveals that he has pushed to get "progressive" (and liberal, leftist, etc.) coatracked into the Coffee Party USA article in order to fit right-wing memes and misconceptions. Xenophrenic (talk) 21:07, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - Getting things up to speed. The "Coffee Party" was started as a Centrist counter to, and play upon, the name of the Right Wing "Tea Party." "Coffee Party Progressives" is a factional split of the former group. I would suggest a merge to Coffee Party USA as a desirable outcome — something that preserves the information without a need to bend notability rules, since it does not appear that there are sufficient sources showing to defend a free-standing piece on the factional offshoot. Carrite (talk) 14:59, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What information would you suggest be preserved about the partisan offshoot and introduced into the existing article? You may find this an interesting read while formulating your response. Frankly, I don't see the relevant addition. It would seem to me that if promotion of a non-notable group in one article is against Wikipedia policy, it would still be against policy to promote a non-notable group in any article. WP:NOTABILITY only applies to new article creation, while WP:PROMOTION is more applicable here and applies to the content regardless of where it is inserted. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 21:07, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - at best, perhaps a blurb in the Coffee Party USA article may be worth mentioning. *shrug* ---Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 01:34, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:10, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:11, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:11, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - a search (Coffee part x) makes a redirect useless, and there is only one good source in the current stub (GNG is not met). Bearian (talk) 20:47, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. & Bearian. A sole reliable source is not enough to satisfy WP:GNG, or warrant a redirect.--JayJasper (talk) 19:12, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Hue Sat Lum 18:28, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - per nom. I would also not be against a merge, but it would only warrant a slight mention (and needs some work). However, until we get more than one politico blogger's opinion I will keep a Weak Delete. Joseph Steven (talk) 20:25, 3 June 2012 (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.