Deletion of New Union Party (2nd nomination)

Comment: What is "incredibly minor" about it? Let's keep the hyperbole at a minimum, shall we?  Wikipedia examines the article and its sources, not one editor's perceived "importance" (to use the wording of the nominator). This nomination sounds a lot like . To address the question of notability: the SLP source is independent of the NUP, it goes into detail the situation in which the group entered the SLP and then left. The Blevins source is substantial (covering two pages) and certainly independent. So there are at least two independent, non-trivial sources required per . The published obituaries of two leading members (there are two in the article) also covered the activities of the party in a significant amount of detail, especially the Miller obituary. Electing a candidate to office is often a secondary goal of many left-wing political groups. The SLP and groups in that tradition placed a high premium on organizing workers in the workplace itself. Lastly, if you could see the article, which was deleted last August, and compare it to this, you would notice that there is far more sourced content than what previously existed. The party's newspaper seems to have been digitized and, if I can get access to it, I would be able to add more detail on their activities
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:IDONTLIKEIT||WP:GNG)