Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Justice Democrats


 * 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 06:55, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Justice Democrats

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I do not believe this borderline promotional article is on a notable topic; if a single article in the Washington Post makes an outfit notable, we're going to run out of paper. This club is...let me see...a day old, and is not proven notable. I'll gladly take a redirect to Young Turks. Drmies (talk) 04:23, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I just saw the talk page, where the old "oh this guy must be a political opponent" nonsense is brought up. Pshaw. Anyway, I do find it odd that we have a number of accounts (and an IP) that appear out of nowhere, all of a sudden, to support this brand-new article, and I sure hope that we're not going to get a wall of meat here in this AfD. Drmies (talk) 04:34, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep. Ever consider that a rapidly expanding movement is obviously going to exponentially attract more people over time? Or that a notice for deletion increases the pressure to improve the page? It's interesting to note the dismissal of the claim of deletion out of political opposition (a claim which I disagree with, for the record) while simultaneously claiming meat puppetry. Come on, look at the article revision history, and it's obvious that it's clearly not a scheme because the patterns of the revisions. I'm sure most of the people are people like me, who Googled "justice democrat" after hearing it, saw that there's a Wikipedia article in desperate need of work, and decided to improve it. Its considerable growth (over two hundred candidate applications and 17 thousand signups in less than one day) makes it notable. The wording bias in the articles can be remedied to make the article less "promotional." And clearly, it's more than one article. -- Firestar493 / Nightstar648 23:43, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 15:43, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 15:43, 25 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep. This was started awfully early, and the editors didn't know how we define notability, but in addition to the Washington Post and Wired sources—both of which are reliable, especially the first, but neither of which was properly identified, so they were lost in the pool of primary sources (two sets of references to the platform) and dubious sources that I have kept because they reference the full list of founding names mentioned in the article, and who knows, some of those without articles may someday become notable—I found an article on the Univision site. That makes 3 reliable news sources, two indisputably major, so although the New York Times article that comes up on search didn't actually cover this group when I checked last night, I believe it now meets WP:GNG. I have accordingly rewritten it to tighten it up. Yngvadottir (talk) 18:25, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep and trim. While it seems a bit bloated, there's plenty of coverage including from the Wired and WaPo to make it a noteworthy topic. Cartoondiablo (talk) 19:35, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Note that MoveOn.org, which took off after the disputed 2000 election season, did not have an article until 3 years after the election that launched it into the big time.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:53, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete as WP:PROMO and as waaaaay WP:TOOSOON. Yes WaPo and Wired ran articles when it launched.  But let's wait until it has done more than launch.  No prejudice against re-creation in 6 months or so if coverage at that point warrants.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:53, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep per Yngvadottir. How many other political organizations are able to attract fifty-thousand-odd registrations in two days? 68.132.76.144 (talk) 23:10, 25 January 2017 (UTC) — User: (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Keep, I really don't see what the problem is with the article. I'm not exactly sure what type of political organization this is (I'm not that familiar with the inner workings of the US system), but Political parties are by definition notable. If someone founds a "People's Democracy Party" in Luxembourg and runs for elections, they are still notable and should have a Wiki article. Just because a party is small (or even dead), doesn't mean it can't have a Wiki article. There are already tons of articles about micro-parties that have like 200 members and get 300 votes. This is no different. --Hibernian (talk) 03:27, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Clean up and Weak Keep Should have some work done to make the tone a bit more neutral, and the article is a bit light with the number of sources there now, but given that there are a few strong ones, and it seems likely there will be more, I lean to keep. Nwlaw63 (talk) 21:20, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep, if there can be a list of Pokemon, why not this? 50,000 sign-ups in one day is pretty notable. It's not like Wikipedia is running out of pages. Asaturn (talk) 22:50, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep, There are Wikipedia articles for small third parties like the Alaskan Independence Party, which only has 13,000 members. The Justice Democrats had 17,000 sign ups in 24 hours. I say that if there are people passionate enough to write and maintain an accurate and quality Wikipedia page, why delete it and discourage them from contributing to other articles in the future?
 * Weak Keep, Although I feel this article was created a little too early, I will say keep as it is a movement of the current time. I do believe more information will become available in the next couple of months but that will take time. For those unfamiliar, this is a movement within the Democratic Party that is similar to the Tea Party movement of the Republican Party several years back. I will admit, it is quite interesting to see how many people have supported the movement so far. As for the New York Times article, the only mention of the Justice Democrats appear in the article link but not in the article itself, which is why the article appears in a Google search for Justice Democrats. It's a pretty deceptive practice by the news agency but that for another day. Elli21486 (talk) 08:00, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep, This is line with other established pages such as Congressional Progressive Caucus, Wolf PAC, Tea Party movement,Brand New Congress, etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by YeshaiMishal (talk • contribs) 19:35, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep As long as the article is neutral and not too promotional of the movement, I'm fine with keeping the article. I also think it's prominent and relevant enough to be featured on a Wikipedia article. - Bokmanrocks01 (talk) 20:50, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep Of course this article should be a neutral description of the movement. But the notability is clear. Anjoe (talk) 11:49, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep Absolutely keep, this is a movement made from the people that brought you one of the largest anti-corruption/political movements in history. It would be absolutely ridiculous to delete this when known Punk Rock bands who start side projects have their band's bio on Wikipedia before they even release a successful record, as if they had already sold millions of records. No reason to delete this, AT ALL. 23:29, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep I don't think this should even be a question. It's a political movement with, as of January 29 2017, over 60,000 supporters, just within the first few days of existence. The party has a clear objective and has been mentioned by several major sources. If that's not notable, I don't know what is. Of course, it should be objective, but that's not a reason for deleting an article when it is clearly noteworthy. -Throast (talk) 22:01, 30 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep As the last commenter noted, this movement already has over 60,000 supporters, so it's definitely important enough for an entry. I myself have already consulted it several times for reference, so I can attest that it is helpful for at least this Wikipedia user. Also, the original complaint that "if a single article in the Washington Post makes an outfit notable, we're going to run out of paper" is silly, because this is the internet (paperless). This is a useful page, and so it's worth the cost that is ACTUALLY real in maintenance. comment added by Monica, user — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:193:8280:50E4:1994:425A:2C0F:A7AB (talk) 22:13, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep Please
 * Keep.  Aar on Sc hulz  08:32, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep Passes under both WP:GNG and WP:NONPROFIT.   Lizzymartin (talk) 03:20, 1 February 2017 (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.