Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Democratic Party of the San Fernando Valley (DP/SFV)


 * 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  d elete. - Mailer Diablo 00:22, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Democratic Party of the San Fernando Valley (DP/SFV)
AfDs for this article: 
 * – (View AfD) (View log)

disputed PROD for local alliance of local political groups; no assertion of notability & no references; fails WP:ORG delete Cornell Rockey 14:32, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep Political organizations are notable if they have a voice in the areas they reside. However, this article is rather poor in quality and needs much work, obviously needing sources.  Dependant on how long this has been sitting without change, give the author some more time to fix it. --David Andreas 17:40, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Are you saying that every county democratic & republican party deserves an article on wikipedia? Cornell Rockey 17:41, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * In my opinion, since I have been deeply involved in politics both in Russia and the States, yes. If countless notable authors and filmmakers deserve a place on Wikipedia, why not organizations that exert political sway?  Politics has much more lasting effects than most authors do.  But this, obviously, is just my opinion and I gladly would hear other opinions on this. --David Andreas 17:54, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Except that "organizations that exert political sway" is a meaningless distinction, since pretty much every organization on Earth that ever hosts a politician for a speech or writes a group letter to any local political authority can be said to "exert political sway". Yes, for an organization that that has had measurable impact on national or perhaps state policy or politics, as noted by multiple, non-trivial, not--purely-local reliable sources. Here, not so much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Calton (talk • contribs)


 * Delete. Local political group, only a subset of a subset of a major political organization: too far down the political foodchain to rate an article, not mention the whole lacking-of-assertions-of-notability-or-references problem. Wikipedia is not a directory of local political groups. --Calton | Talk 20:06, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment I'm not sure how to handle county parties, and many US counties are so small that county as a fully automatic criterion does not make sense, though it will make sense in many cases, such as the NJ counties. As I understand the geography, this is sub-county. The possible lack of notability in this case is shownby the utter lack of notability of the people mentioned. The article would be stronger with them out, so I have done jsut that--if not approved of, it can be reverted. DGG 01:42, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletions.   -- John Vandenberg 06:52, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletions.   -- John Vandenberg 06:53, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete unless referenced; no secondary sources are evident on Google or Google News. -- Visviva 09:21, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete unless multiple, independent, reliable sources can be provided. From WP:ORG: "Individual chapters of national and international organizations are usually not notable enough to warrant a separate article unless sufficient notability is established through reliable sources." I think that basically says what the problem is here: The reliable sources are, so far at least, lacking. Noroton 02:45, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
 * So I'm confused. If Wikipedia is designed to put information in, then why not keep the article? Isn't the point of this to keep a living version of an encyclopedia? (CoffeeAddictMike 04:15, 27 June 2007 (UTC))
 * If there are not multiple, independent, reliable sources, then how can we keep up the quality? We obviously need to do more than provide m/i/r sources, but we should at least be doing that. It's a standard that at least helps to keep up accuracy. Noroton 04:23, 27 June 2007 (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.