Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michigan Third Parties Coalition

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 evidence has been produced to show that reliable secondary sources are available to meet the relevant notability guideline. Davewild (talk) 18:50, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Michigan Third Parties Coalition[edit]

Michigan Third Parties Coalition (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Non-notable organization. Independent sources are scarce. Grand total of 18 unique Google hits. 4 Google News hits, all from August 2007 or earlier, apparently based on two distinct articles (see here for the AP one from July 2007). Apparently they didn't do anything except being founded. While that's verifiable, it's not especially notable. Possible conflict of interest since the logo is claimed to have been created by one of the chief editors. Was prodded, prod removed without improvement. Huon (talk) 08:34, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom's argument. I removed the prod tag. Will change to keep if notability is established. Original contested prod rationale was based on it being a real political coalition seeking to make change and was verifiable, but only on those means. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 08:41, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep-"Non-notable organisation" with a "grand total of 18 unique Google hits"? It is evidently contradicting; I see no cause why the article should be deleted. [1] shows that they do actually do something other than being founded. This organisation has room is indeed notable with more than 18 Google hits. There is no proof that the chief editor created the, too. Cheers, Zacharycrimsonwolf 15:31, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That isnt even a third party source though. Its their main web site. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 15:38, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and their main contributor to the article is KV (other edits are 1 from a bot, and 1 from a user adding a category tag I believe). And he was the one who made their logo. Regards. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 15:40, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment This will teach me never to present the results of a Google search without a link: 18 unique results. This is extremely low for an organization that's supposed to be influencing public opinion and Michigan State law. Furthermore, these 18 hits include Wikipedia, its mirrors, the organization, its component parties and a few search engines. I didn't find any independent source about their activities after the founding. Concerning the logo: The Wikipedia image is described as self-made by King Vegita. It is the same as the one on their website, compare here (except theirs is a BMP file, we have a JPEG). I took that to mean that KV created the original logo and didn't just change the image type. Huon (talk) 17:16, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Blatant spam. —Snthdiueoa (talk|contribs) 09:54, 22 March 2008 (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.