Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/New Jersey Federation of Republican Women

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. Rationale: AfD discussions are not a vote, and the strongest arguments here related to GNG, and then secondly to precedent with regard to any putative inherent notability. Legal entity status, on the other hand, does not relate to any policy-based argument. j⚛e decker^talk 16:18, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

New Jersey Federation of Republican Women

New Jersey Federation of Republican Women (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Non-notable organisation. Shritwod (talk) 13:38, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

• Delete or merge to National Federation of Republican Women, which is its national organization. Firstly, the current article is really just a list of current female Republican office holders, and if kept, needs to be renamed List of female Republican politicians in New Jersey, or redirected to a category page, or merged into New Jersey Republican Committee. Secondly, while the individuals listed may be notable, (a) notability is not inherited, and (b) there really isn't much of a connection between past moderate office-holders of the 1950s, '60s and 70s, when the GOP in New Jersey was a completely different party of today's Christie machine. Thirdly, all of the references are primary sources, and we need at least two or three secondary sources for general notability, especially for a group. Bearian (talk) 20:01, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:55, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:55, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:55, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

• Delete We don;t normally even merge this material for state brnches of national organizations. the main organizations websitewill have the links if anyone wants information. DGG ( talk ) 02:47, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
• Keep As Is These are all different organizations. The article is more than a list, and contains neutral content. Your reference to the 'Christie machine' might indicate that your desire to delete the page is motivated by more than pure intentions' • MadieSmith Madiesmith (talk) 19:39, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
• Do NOT Delete This organization is its own legal entity under state and federal election laws. It is not related to or part of the NJ Republican Committee. The NJ Republican Committee is formed under state statute as a Political Party Committee and its members stand for election on the ballot every two years. The NJFRW is a Continuing Political Committee, an entirely different entity under NJ law. The National Federation of Republican Women has state affiliates, ALL of which are their own legal entities. It appears that the person who wants this deleted has a political agenda and is completely uninformed about the legalities of PPCs and CPCs in the State of NJ. --ChazNJ (talk) 14:11, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

There are lots of local and regional political parties and movements worldwide which are entities in their own right. They do not all deserve a listing, and in my view neither does this. But the reason that I nominated this article is that it appears that someone paid an editor to create it for some reason, which brings into question its notability and also flags up an undeclared COI with the page creator. Shritwod (talk) 15:52, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Keep As Is Shritwod: If the information provided is accurate, what difference does it make? Wiki is for everyone, not just those with technical knowledge. Maybe they did not how to use the program, or found the task daunting, but provided the content. There is an entire industry based on building websites, apps, and social media for those who do not have the technical knowledge to do so themselves, but it still requires the person contracting the programmer to provide content. No crime in that. Here, the content has been referenced and the content is paramount. And maybe they did make it themselves? We don't know for sure. Leave it be.–Madiesmith (talk) 22:34, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not aim to catalog every possible item of human knowledge, there has to be some level of notability. And an internal regional subdivision of a subdivision of a US political party does not seem to meet those criteria. I can't see that this is of any interest except to people directly involved in it. Shritwod (talk) 00:00, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

• Delete per Bearian, especially considering the sources aren't there so WP:GNG comes into play. Also, Madiesmith, you're only allowed one vote, so to avoid confusion I put a strikethrough your second use of bold for "Keep as is." GRUcrule (talk) 13:54, 4 April 2014 (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.