Deletion of Constitution Party of Alabama

Comment: I see no reason why these state-level organizations should inherit notability from their national-level partner.  I see no major precedent that doesn't fall into  and there's no guideline that indicates that notability should be inherited.  Some of these subjects don't seem notable at all (no independent and reliable sources in the article and none are coming up in Google or Google News searches) while others are certainly notable per  and .  I think that's incredibly obvious.  I was hoping that this discussion would come to that conclusion and start moving towards subject-by-subject decisions but it seems to have degraded into all-or-nothing arguments
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:OTHERSTUFF||WP:GNG||WP:ORG)

Comment: with the exception of the notable state parties mentioned above, which should probably be '''kept'''. Edit: ''Elaborated on this option in it's own comment, see below''  Several of these state parties mentioned in this AfD, in my opinion, very obviously fail  and lack enough reliable sources to make for a strong, NPOV article that meets Wikipedia's standards.  However, I think it would be a fair compromise to the people interested in writing about third parties in the U.S. if we keep open to the idea of re-creating certain state party articles if their notability changes (if a state party gets ballot access, state/national news coverage, etc
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N)

Comment: I'd keep them all. Sure they're stubs, and need sources. Third parties in the US are historically notable at shaping policies and having political effects despite small membership and little electoral success. That may or may not be the case here, but there likely aren't that many editors aware of what's happening behind the scenes. Leave the stubs in place so that when one does come along, he doesn't have to start from scratch. Speaking as an editor, it's much easier to add a paragraph and a couple references to an existing article, than to create an all-new article. If these articles ''are'' deleted, the same review should be given to all the Libertarian Party (United States)|LP and Green Party of the United States|GP state affiliates as well, lest this whole process scream "|bias
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (WP:NPOV)

Comment: Constitution Party of Washington. I've https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Constitution_Party_of_Washington&diff=prev&oldid=594834857 added 10 news articles from around Eastern Washington that focus on the Constitution Party. The Seattle Times http://nl.newsbank.com/nl-search/we/Archives archive has a significant number of news hits spanning the 1950s to the 1970s. Regardless of ballot access (Washington has a top 2 primary, so it's moot) there have been enough lengthy profiles of this party in Washington written over the years to meet 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:ORG)

Comment: per . References mean nothing if they are not reliable or notable, agreed with Ad and Aristeo
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:ORG)

Comment: first, in response to "...as an excuse to give a pass to another non-notable state branch of a minor political party."  According to what came across my watchlist, that would be Libertarian Party of California, correct?  I get tired of reading bold declarations of non-notability which ultimately reveal a complete lack of familiarity with or understanding of the subject at hand.  Simply put, California is a state in which the LP can claim accomplishments at the state level.  Granted, these were mostly concentrated around the political heyday of Ed Clark.  Still, go back to "notability doesn't fade" mentioned elsewhere in this discussion.  Alaska is also a state in which the LP can claim accomplishments at the state level.  Alaska Libertarian Party is also a smoldering heap which completely misses the mark in pointing out why the subject is notable.  Fixing problematic or subpar material through deletion would be akin to recommending that I purchase a chainsaw this spring to swat the mosquitoes away once they arrive.  Now, to the second point.  You're wondering why the Constitution Party would write themselves up on here?  Let me give you an example.  I've witnessed a years-long issue with coverage of United States elections on Wikipedia.  A small group of editors (a wannabe backbone cabal if I ever saw one) have demonstrated a seriously demented  complex over the subject matter as a whole.  New election articles are typically written so as to mention only the Democratic and Republican parties, with extreme indifference to any other parties which may have ballot access in a given state, or even that other parties would have ballot access and therefore might possibly have equal footing.  Moreover, these same editors have pushed the bizarre POV that having your press release picked up by a media outlet is what makes you a candidate for public office, not actually filing any paperwork such as a declaration of candidacy statement or financial disclosure paperwork.  What does this have to do with the Constitution Party?  Well, this issue is how I came to recently encounter John R. Myers, the Alaska state party chair.  Myers is also running for Alaska governor this year, but has not yet been certified for the ballot.  He added his name to that election's article, which was initially reverted with the edit summary calling him a "self-declared candidate".  That's funny, because according to their website, the Alaska Public Offices Commission has declared him a candidate, too.  If the corporate media has ignored him, that's because he's in no position to make them advertising revenue.  It's morally indefensible to parrot that agenda on this non-commercial website.  Back to the main point, I sent a message to Mr. Myers.  In doing so, I noticed that I was the first person to talk to him like a real human being, rather than inundating him with robo-messaging.  He replied, with the gist of it being that he was new to Wikipedia, or at least new to the article about the election he was participating in, and *''he couldn't understand why Wikipedia was only mentioning certain candidates''*.  Of course, I could have said just that and made my point without the Alice's Restaurant version, but I hope I've made things clearer
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Ownership of content (WP:OWN)