Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Democratic Ideals

 This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was KEEP. -Splash 22:52, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Democratic Ideals
Was originally deleted by VFD vote, then subsequently undeleted by VFU vote. This VFD is part of undeletion procedure. The reason for its earlier nomination was that it would be original research, and that the website mentioned in the article is non-notable per its low Alexa rank of 760,000. Abstain. Radiant_ &gt;|&lt; 12:55, August 6, 2005 (UTC)


 * Well, I vote Keep, just as I did last time. But having read the VFU page in question I'm not sure if my vote will count anymore, so there we are. =/ I think the article could be expanded, and I think more citations are necessary, but that's simply a matter of legwork.  And I still think that this article is necessary, since articles like Democracy have become the battle ground of entrenched camps of wikipedians. Xaa 14:05, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
 * If it matters, I've worked on the article a bit and added citations. You may wish to take a look at it again. =) Xaa 17:19, 6 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete as personal essay and original research, unless much better evidence is provided that this is not just personal musing about a phrase. I am not convinced that the phrase "democratic ideals" has any specific meaning beyond the combination of the meaning of the noun "ideals" modified by the adjective "democratic." I note that the Columbia Encyclopedia uses the phrase in a few articles but does not have an article under that entry. Dpbsmith (talk) 14:21, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Withdrawing my vote: no vote. I still don't like the article, but I do feel that Xaa has made a serious effort to meet the worst objections. In its present form, it doesn't do Wikipedia any harm. Dpbsmith (talk) 22:12, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete Agreed w/ Dpbsmith. Wile E. Heresiarch 16:30, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Abstain Agreed w/ Dpbsmith. Wile E. Heresiarch 03:46, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep This phrase is used widely by politicians and, as evidenced by the newly added citations in the article, is also discussed by social scientists and other researchers. The recent modifications to the article make it less problematic than before.  Though it still needs work, I believe that it has value and should be kept so that it can continue to mature. Tobycat 21:02, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Seems like a reasonably good article. Sjakkalle (Check!)  08:07, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. I see no reason to delete this. --Apyule 08:09, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. The phrase shows up constantly, and the usages should be documented. Since it is a concept in standard curiculum in California, clearly it means something specific to large notable organizations. 66.30.79.242 16:49, 9 August 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.