- 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. Randykitty ( talk) 10:53, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
Blue Enigma Party
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Blue Enigma Party ( | 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 does not have any real sourcing aside from its own website and what appears to be brief mentions of its existence. There is no evidence that this state party has any elected officers or that it been mentioned in a non-trivial way in reliable sources. Toa Nidhiki05 01:50, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Delaware-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 06:05, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 06:05, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 06:05, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
- Merge: The subject is not notable but it cannot stand as an independent article, so it would be better to merge on a related article. Hispring ( talk) 06:51, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
-
Hispring, what would be your suggested merge target? ♠
PMC♠
(talk)
17:03, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
- As
WP:DP mentioned, deleting is the last solution and I prefer alternative ones. Also
NYT mentioned this party, actually I know it is not an independent source.
Hispring (
talk)
18:26, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
- Not what I asked. Do you have a merge target in mind? Voting merge without a target in mind is not helpful for the closer. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 19:40, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
- As
WP:DP mentioned, deleting is the last solution and I prefer alternative ones. Also
NYT mentioned this party, actually I know it is not an independent source.
Hispring (
talk)
18:26, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
-
Hispring, what would be your suggested merge target? ♠
PMC♠
(talk)
17:03, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
- Delete, in the absence of any reliable sources or claim to actual significance. No suitable merge target. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 17:03, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
- 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.
- 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. Randykitty ( talk) 10:53, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
Blue Enigma Party
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Blue Enigma Party ( | 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 does not have any real sourcing aside from its own website and what appears to be brief mentions of its existence. There is no evidence that this state party has any elected officers or that it been mentioned in a non-trivial way in reliable sources. Toa Nidhiki05 01:50, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Delaware-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 06:05, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 06:05, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 06:05, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
- Merge: The subject is not notable but it cannot stand as an independent article, so it would be better to merge on a related article. Hispring ( talk) 06:51, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
-
Hispring, what would be your suggested merge target? ♠
PMC♠
(talk)
17:03, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
- As
WP:DP mentioned, deleting is the last solution and I prefer alternative ones. Also
NYT mentioned this party, actually I know it is not an independent source.
Hispring (
talk)
18:26, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
- Not what I asked. Do you have a merge target in mind? Voting merge without a target in mind is not helpful for the closer. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 19:40, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
- As
WP:DP mentioned, deleting is the last solution and I prefer alternative ones. Also
NYT mentioned this party, actually I know it is not an independent source.
Hispring (
talk)
18:26, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
-
Hispring, what would be your suggested merge target? ♠
PMC♠
(talk)
17:03, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
- Delete, in the absence of any reliable sources or claim to actual significance. No suitable merge target. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 17:03, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
- 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.