Talk:Young Democrats of America

Update Needed
The YDA Leadership list in this article needs to be updated to match the corresponding list on the YDA website. --TommyBoy (talk) 08:26, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Upon reviewing the YDA leadership on the website, I havw determined that no further update is needed at this time. --TommyBoy (talk) 18:11, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Merger proposal
The article Los Angeles County Young Democrats does not appear to pass WP:GNG as it does not meet the significant coverage criteria of the aforementioned policy. Being that it is a regional entity of this larger organization it therefore should fall under WP:ORG, and a merge should be conducted. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 07:54, 30 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose Two reasons. (1) The Los Angeles County Young Democrats just passed an AfD discussion as "keep". You proposed a merge at that discussion, but no one else supported the idea. (2) The LACYD may actually be more notable than the YDA; I find more significant news coverage of the LACYD than I do of the YDA. It's true that the guideline you cited suggests a merge, but an exception is allowed if the local chapter is notable. --MelanieN (talk) 14:51, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Please see WP:AVOIDYOU
 * The referenced link WP:AVOIDYOU leads to No personal attacks. Nobody could take my comments above as a personal attack. I was responding to what "you proposed" and "you cited". Unless you think we are required to address each other in the third person ("the guideline that RightCowLeftCoast cited..."), let's avoid distractions and keep to the issues here. --MelanieN (talk) 01:16, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Counter to point one: "The organization gets four pages of hits at Google News, so it gets a lot of press; however it's mostly passing mentions rather than significant in-depth coverage."

- User:MelanieN "We would normally merge an article about a local organization like this into its parent/national organization, but I could find no indication that the group is affiliated with the state or national Young Democrats, so a merge isn't appropriate."

- User:MelanieN


 * Due to the statement that the subject of the article does not have significant coverage it fails WP:GNG as I had mentioned in the beginning of this proposal
 * I have provided a link showing that this county level organization is in fact affiliated with the state organization of the Young Democrats of American, which is in turn affiliated with the national organization.
 * Counter to point two:
 * The subject "Young Democrats of America" has over one thousand hits on a wikinews search, however "Los Angeles County Young Democrats" has only 34. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:38, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The subject "Young Democrats of America" has over one thousand hits on a wikinews search, however "Los Angeles County Young Democrats" has only 34. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:38, 30 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose - On procedural grounds, this article just having passed as a KEEP. Carrite (talk) 15:25, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I understand the reasoning given to this opposition. However, to counter the subject of the article which is being proposed to be merged into this article still has not passed WP:GNG, therefore, it does not meet WP:NN. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:38, 30 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose Was Kept, and Org-Local's logic of requiring an organization to have coverage extending outside its target area is seriously flawed. If this is applied to international organizations, they would be required to have coverage elsewhere in the solar system. Anarchangel (talk) 18:11, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * This is flawed logic, the example given is that international organizations are part of an interplanetary or greater organization ... being that at present the only known sentient life is on planet Earth, there is no reliable sources to indicate that there are interplanetary organizations that exist, and could be parent organizations to the international ones given in the example. Furthermore, if an organization is only in a given location, and not part of a larger organization, it would still be required to meet WP:GNG. Anarchangel (talk) 19:07, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
 * To clarify: local organizations are required to have coverage wider than the area that they operate in. There is no coverage wider than the area that international organizations operate in. There is a double standard in the rules. Anarchangel (talk) 19:07, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Since I have documented connection of the subject to be merged into this article, it stands to reason that WP:ORG#Local units of larger organizations still applies.


 * Furthermore to counter "Notability for the subject is established."

- User:Anarchangel


 * I have found 34 mentions in news of the subject that is being proposed to be merged, and 19 thousand plus that are non-news and not wikipedia, but of these none appear to meet the significant coverage requirement, therefore a merger into this article would be logical. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:38, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I do not believe in majority rule, but where there is an easy compromise to address the flaw in ORG#Local, eg to require each tier to be covered in its own operating area, your view that the article should be merged is incompatible with ours. There is no way to merge the article and not merge it, at the same time. In this case, the only practical thing to do is to go with the majority viewpoint, aka Consensus. Trust me, I sympathize with your position. Anarchangel (talk) 19:07, 1 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment RightCow, I came back here just now because I wanted to thank you for your courtesy in notifying the people who took part in the AfD about this discussion. I do appreciate that. However, looking at the discussion above, it appears that this Merge suggestion is simply an attempt to overturn the result of the AfD, using the same arguments which did not prevail there. If you feel the AfD was closed in error or reached the wrong result, then appeal the closure. Don't try to accomplish via a Merge request what was not accomplished with a Deletion nomination. --MelanieN (talk) 01:09, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment I am of the opinion that the good faith of this discussion is being called into question. Please let us keep the conversation about content of this discussion and not about other editors, but rather discuss ways to improve Wikipedia.
 * I see that there are opinions that are counter to that of my own that do not believe that a merger is possible without a deletion of the article in question. Perhaps, a compromise is it leave a summary of the article here, and to reduce non verifiable content of the article proposed to be merged, and then expand it with verified content, therefore improving it in accordance to policy, and expanding this article? --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 16:07, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Now you're talking! Instead of blanking and redirecting the LACYD article (which is what happens with a Merge), let's improve it! I have just now added information and references that speak to its activity and notability. I would not object to deleting the listing of the board of directors, and possibly even the list of "notable past members" since their past membership is unverified. --MelanieN (talk) 18:26, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Personally, I think if the membership can be verified, as are done in some other embedded list, then they should remain, otherwise removal would be valid under lack of verifiability.
 * How much does the article's use of primary and secondary sources help or diminish its quality?
 * For sake of balance and WP:NPOV, should neutral articles exist as well regarding any similar conservative, libertarian, green, etc (insert political spectrum description here) organizations, presuming there are sufficient references to produce those articles? For instance perhaps a Los Angeles County Young Republicans article. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:31, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia isn't about "balance"; it's about notability and verifiability. If there are sufficient sources for other groups somebody should write them an article; if not, they shouldn't have one. This often comes up during elections, when it is claimed that since the incumbent has an article, each of the challengers should have an article for "balance". That argument does not prevail at AfD discussions; each person must have significant coverage from independent reliable sources. Same logic applies here. Just because the Los Angeles County Young Democrats have an article, that does not imply that the Los Angeles County Young Republicans or the San Francisco Young Democrats should get an article. Each group is judged on their own merits. --MelanieN (talk) 21:14, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
 * P.S. Looking at the Google News link you supplied, I would say there is enough sourcing to support an article about the Los Angeles County Young Republicans, and if such an article is written and sourced I will support its inclusion. --MelanieN (talk) 10:17, 3 April 2011 (UTC)