Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Direct Congress


 * 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   delete. Will userfy upon request. Mark Arsten (talk) 14:15, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Direct Congress

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

This is an ongoing doctoral project by a student at Temple University. While I wish him the best of luck on his thesis, this article does not meet WP:WEB or the general notability guideline. There is some outside coverage in what appear to be personal blogs. szyslak ( t ) 08:53, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi Szyslak. No, it's a political party. It started as a thesis, and then it grew teeth. Sharp teeth. When are and when aren't blogs permitted citations?
 * Please see Reliable source examples--JayJasper (talk) 19:24, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks--

Settdigger (talk) 09:06, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

"If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article or stand-alone list."

I grant you, this party is real small potatoes. But it's received outside coverage.
 * Please see Identifying reliable sources for WP's standards of "reliability" regarding sources.--JayJasper (talk) 19:24, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Settdigger (talk) 09:08, 30 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete Does not satisfy WP:WEBSITE. The references in the article are very lightweight (one is definitely a blog, another appears to be a blog, and a third is The Temple News which is a weekly newspaper of a university). The article has no encyclopedic information regarding the website's achievements, impact or historical significance. Johnuniq (talk) 10:30, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, Johnuniq for making suggestions for helpful additions and evincing a desire to scrap the entire page in the same breath. I've added some per your suggestions. Your blanket statement that it does not satisfy Wikipedia' notability guidelines is amusing -- let's talk about it. Settdigger (talk) 15:42, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Direct Congress has been featured on National Public Radio's Newsworks Tonight, in a TEDx talk, and on WHIP Student Radio, among other places. See: http://directcongress.org/news/ Direct Congress is significant because it is the first American initiative to create an online voting party that sponsors real candidates. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aet250 (talk • contribs) 18:17, 30 August 2012 (UTC) — Aet250 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 20:07, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 20:07, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 20:08, 30 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete  Citations do not seem to meet WP:RS criteria. They are primarily blogs & forums plus a college newspaper from a school that apparently has a close connection with the subject. Fails WP:WEB & WP:GNG.--JayJasper (talk) 19:07, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete, or Userfy'. Perhaps it is WP:TOOSOON for this article to be created. Presently there are few reliable sources that cover the subject in an in depth manor that would be consistent with significant coverage requirements set forth by WP:GNG or WP:ORG. There is the PBS and college newspaper sources, but it is my humble opinion that more coverage is needed than just those sources, to meet notability requirements. In the mean time, if the primary editor wants, the articlespace can be userfied so that continued work can happen until more sources can be found to support notability. At that time, the deletion can be repealed, and the case can be made again that the subject of this article is notable.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 17:29, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment No objection to userfying the content, actually would encourage it. The subject shows potential for notability, but does not appear to meet the threshold just yet.--JayJasper (talk) 20:54, 4 September 2012 (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.