Talk:List of state Green Parties in the United States

Merger

I have to confess I don't see the value in merging the content of so many independent articles into this list format. Is there some discussion about this somewhere that I may have missed? The page says it "links to articles on the state parties where they exist," so why fold the content in here? --Editor B (talk) 17:44, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Many of the articles don't have sources to back up much of their content. So it's either tagged for speedy deletion, AfD, or merge here. I figured merging was the lesser of the three evils. Me-123567-Me (talk) 19:06, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

I was being bold. Me-123567-Me (talk) 19:08, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Fair enough! If I can dig up sufficient sources I may restore Green Party of Louisiana — thanks for the nudge. --Editor B (talk) 19:43, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Please do! I tried online to find sources for many of them and came up fairly empty for many - and the ones I did find, were not plentiful. I left articles like Green Party of California that seemed to have ample references alone. Me-123567-Me (talk) 03:24, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Proposed merge with Green Party of New Jersey

Close note - I am satisfied the article has been improved and withdraw the nomination to merge the Green Party of New Jersey. Me-123567-Me (talk) 04:07, 31 January 2017 (UTC) This article needs a lot of work and has been tagged for quite a while. Me-123567-Me (talk) 03:42, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

This article was nominated at AfD a year ago: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Green Party of New Jersey. The decision was speedy keep. Being tagged and needing work does not negate the standing of an article or its content. Bcharles (talk) 08:22, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

I think the separate article is more appropriate. --Editor B (talk) 16:03, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

The fact there are public records of the registration and nominees is a start, but these articles still need to satisfy WP:ORGCRITE. Some of the arguments I've seen for these state parties have fallen under WP:BRANCH (e.g. "this is a state affiliate of a national party" or words to that effect), and it seems to me this is a key issue to address for both Green Party of Texas and the Green Party of New Jersey. In the case of New Jersey, I don't understand why the mention of a member on a local school board is even in the article, and the same applies for lists of nominees for governor who received <1% of the vote. That is WP:TRIVIA. In fact, there's nothing in the article except trivia for anyone who isn't already an enthusiastic fan. At least the Texas Greens had a scandal, that's something!

The problem I see for those advocating to keep these articles are that the "branch" argument and the listing of trivial election results, intended to be evidence of notability, are actually arguments for deletion or merger under WP guidelines. Jack N. Stock (talk) 16:23, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

This article claims the organization has run over 150 candidates for public office. That seems notable on the face of it — if it is actually true. (There's no source cited, so that's problematic, but merging wouldn't resolve this.) They had an elected representative in the state legislature. Surely that's notable. --Editor B (talk) 17:37, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

I think we can disregard some of these nominations - for example, the nominees for local school boards, even though one was elected. The state rep was elected as another party's nominee, switched to the Greens and was voted out by the end of the year. I doubt that provides the state rep any significant notability, and even less to the party WP:INHERITORG. This is grasping at straws. Jack N. Stock (talk) 18:23, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Bcharles and Editor B. State green parties are notable. J947 20:36, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

@J947: Just stating that something just is notable is not proof that it is. Point to some sources to satisfy WP:ORGDEPTH. AusLondonder (talk) 06:04, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

I think we can disregard nominations at the local level and only include cited facts of people being elected. Me-123567-Me (talk) 19:42, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

This discussion calls into question the work I've been doing on the Green Party of Louisiana article. Check it out and tell me if you think I'm wasting my time. --Editor B (talk) 23:01, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

According to the 1992 census, there were 513,200 elected officials in the US. I don't know how many nominate for each position (some people run unopposed) and whether there has been increase in number of elected positions over the last 25 years (seems likely), but it's reasonable to estimate there are a million nominees over each electoral cycle. Over the last decade, millions of candidates. Divide by 50 states, still tens of thousands per state. You can see how statements of "over 150 candidates," lists of every candidate, or even lists of elected officials that include local positions (like the county school board) are delving into trivia. That's the sort of thing that I think is best avoided. Jack N. Stock (talk) 23:56, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

• Support Local branches/offices of a larger notable organisation are not necessarily notable (and are mostly not). To paraphrase, a political party may be notable, but its branches do not "inherit" notability from the larger entity. See WP:ORGDEPTH as well AusLondonder (talk) 06:03, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose as per my comments above. J947 01:29, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Proposed merge with Green Party of Texas

This article (Green Party of Texas) needs a lot of work and has been tagged for quite a while, and still doesn't show notability. Me-123567-Me (talk) 03:45, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

The GPTX is clearly notable enough for a separate article. The article is substantial and already includes more information than could be incorporated into a list format. Your persistent pushes cut, merge or remove legitimate articles and content serves to marginalize Green Party articles. Bcharles (talk) 08:44, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes, it clearly does need work, especially in terms of citing sources, but the article is substantial and appears notable on the face of it. I'm not sure how merging into a larger list would help any of these issues. I'd prefer to keep it separate. --Editor B (talk) 16:01, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

@Editor B: I see no reason it can't go back to being it's own article once it is up to snuff. The list is an opportunity to do that. At least it's not being deleted, but instead being moved to somwere it can be improved. Me-123567-Me (talk) 18:11, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Jacknstock under the New Jersey discussion. A branch of a bigger party does not = notable. See WP:ORGCITE and WP:INHERITORG. Me-123567-Me (talk) 19:43, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

• Support Local branches/offices of a larger notable organisation are not necessarily notable (and are mostly not). To paraphrase, a political party may be notable, but its branches do not "inherit" notability from the larger entity. See WP:ORGDEPTH as well AusLondonder (talk) 06:02, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose - Same reason as above. J947 01:30, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose - Notable state minor party, etc. KingAntenor (talk) 16:58, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Proposed merge with Mountain Party

Article has an entire two references and has been tagged for work to be done on the article for 4+ years. Let's merge so it can be improved! Me-123567-Me (talk) 16:55, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the Deletion alerts! at WikiProject Green Politics. Me-123567-Me (talk) 19:59, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

The Mountain Party is a notable organization on its own merits. It was an independent party for years before becoming a member of the national Green Party. Notability, not time lag for edits, is the criteria for keeping a stand alone article. Merging into a list obscures the content and slows improvements. In particular it keeps those interested in a particular state's politics from finding it in relevant categories. Note that state parties are not branches of the national Green Party, but autonomous organizations which might affiliate with the national party. Bcharles (talk) 20:00, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Agree with Bcharles. Once again, it's unclear to me how merge enables improvement. If anything, lowering the profile of the article would seem to discourage the work that's needed. --Editor B (talk) 17:24, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Except it's not getting the work it needs. Me-123567-Me (talk) 18:07, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

There's a fair amount of information there, maybe too much to merge into this article, but several more references would be great. Surely this party has received some press over the years! Jack N. Stock (talk) 18:17, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Google News has 347 results. Me-123567-Me (talk) 18:30, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Due to improvements I made myself, I withdraw my nomination to merge Mountain Party to this list. Me-123567-Me (talk) 19:09, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.