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. — Aitias // discussion 11:09, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

National Sovereignty Party (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

I have done Google and Google News searches for "national sovereignty party" -russia -welsh -wales -canada -afghanistan -wiki -poland -brazil -turkish -turkey -croatia, (there are lots of "National Sovereignty Parties" around the world!) and have looked at every single hit generated. There is no evidence whatsoever of non-trivial coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. The author of the page should identify some grounds for inclusion prior to recreating the article next time. Bongomatic 17:56, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete can't find the name of their 2000 presidential candidate covered anywhere; appears non-notable. Politizer ^talk/_contribs 17:58, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Why not speedy as a non-notable org? Ironholds (talk) 18:37, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure if non-notability is blatant and uncontroversial enough for speedy...but I definitely still endorse deletion through AfD. Politizer ^talk/_contribs 18:42, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedied once, recreated, hence AfD. Bongomatic 23:45, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oh, I didn't notice that. In that case, it could have been speedied as "recreation of deleted material," but that's moot now, it looks pretty likely to be deleted anyway. Politizer ^talk/_contribs 19:10, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, G4 explicitly excludes articles that were deleted via ((prod))> and speedy. See WP:CSD. While the original criterion still applies, so it remains eligible for speedy again, I wanted to do an AfD discussion so G4 can be used in future cases of recreation. Bongomatic 23:15, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I see. Thanks for pointing that out; I had never noticed that about G4 before. Politizer ^talk/_contribs 00:43, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. This party did not compete in the 2000 presidential election except possibly in the most half-hearted way. They did not make the presidential ballot in even one state. See this issue of Ballot Access News for evidence against their participation. In fact, the article does not assert that the party has ever had a candidate appear on any ballot, much less received any mainstream news coverage. More likely this party was probably the alter ego of its non-notable candidate's non-notable write-in campaign. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:19, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Who? KleenupKrew (talk) 04:48, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per User:Bongomatic and User:Metropolitan90. Power.corrupts (talk) 21:05, 19 January 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.