Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Democrats opposing Hillary Clinton presidential campaign, 2016


 * 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. The problem with this AfD is that many people on both sides approach it not from a policy perspective (has this topic sufficient coverage in reliable sources for an article?), but from a political perspective (is this as politically significant as the Republican opposition to Donald Trump?). That's not to say that this is not a valid approach - after all, the perceived significance of an event does factor into our decision about whether to cover something at the article level. But it means I can't easily weigh the strength of the arguments. Nonetheless, I see only two "keep"s that make a cogent argument based on political significance, and one "keep" that argues that "this gives a perspective that there is an equivalent to the Trump-opposition", which is not anything that I recognize as a valid argument in terms of our policies. This gives us a reasonably solid consensus for "delete". I have to discount the two inscrutable "support" votes, but if they had to be counted I'd guess that they meant to support the nomination for deletion.  Sandstein  08:20, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

List of Democrats opposing Hillary Clinton presidential campaign, 2016

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Delete This is an attempt to create a false equalivence and has now been made into mostly Democrats who are celebrities endorsing Jill Stein. This appears to be created solely to counter the Republicans who Oppose Donald Trump article. There appears to be people who are not notable who have been included, and it seems as if this should be deleted.Theoallen1 (talk) 00:25, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Support --Varavour (talk) 13:35, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Do you support deletion or keeping the article? Please use words such as Delete or KeepTheoallen1 (talk) 23:25, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep It's not as notable a phenomenon, but is noticed in parts of "coal country" on the one and some anti-war or anti-multinational Leftists on the other. Plus "false equivalence", in Wikipedia terms, would be more about making unequal positions sound equal. The existence of an article doesn't have to do that. We have LGBT conservatism in the United States even though most LGBT do not poll as conservative. The existence of articles, I think, is more about whether it can be sourced and is notable enough to justify an article.--T. Anthony (talk) 14:39, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
 * But it does create false equivalence, because there is no movement against Hillary Clinton from the Democratic Party, while indeed there is a huge movement against Donald Trump from the Republican Party. LGBT conservatism is an actual thing, because there are millions of LGBT conservatives, and a handful have been elected, and conservatism among LGBT people has been covered as a notable movement of people. Democratic opposition to Hillary Clinton has not been covered as a movement apart from individual defectors, of which there is a small number. MAINEiac4434 (talk) 03:43, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
 * In parts of Appalachia, the one district of Maine, and such it has been noted there seems to be a number of Democrats going for Trump. And whether Stein will draw any disaffected Sanders voters was a topic of discussion. We can have articles on small phenomenon. In fact I think we do it a fair amount. That there is a big movement against Donald Trump, and only a small one against Hillary Clinton that's in a scattering of areas, doesn't mean we must ignore the one for fear of making it sound too big. (Although if you prefer it not being a list I'm open to renaming it Democratic opposition to Hillary Clinton in 2016 to avoid some of the listing issues and make it a different form of article.)--T. Anthony (talk) 06:09, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
 * It's such a comparatively small occurrence that psephologists could write an article about and will surely be discussed by campaign strategists in the event of a Clinton 2020 presidential campaign. But in terms of notability, it simply has none. The notable party figures are few, and the news isn't talking about it. This is creating a story where there isn't one, riding close to WP:OR, in the name of impartiality. Therequiembellishere (talk) 06:24, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Possibly 12% of Democrats isn't that small. And as it's mostly among whites without college education it's going to be of less interest to journalists who tend to be educated. I'm not at all arguing the article should be as big as the other or that we should make articles on every small town Democratic mayor for Trump or college professor who switched to the Green Party, but something on it seems like it can be okay.--T. Anthony (talk) 06:37, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Support. --MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 20:46, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Do you support deletion or keeping the article? Please use words such as Delete or KeepTheoallen1 (talk) 23:25, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep I agree with the reasons offered by T. Anthony. I would add that as I was reading the Anti-Trump/GOP page, I found myself wondering if there were a comparable page for Clinton.  I assumed there was, and also assumed it would be shorter.  Both of my assumptions were correct.  Had there not been a comparable page, I might have concluded that there were no notable Democrats anywhere who oppose to Clinton, and that would seem unlikely.  Fmjohnson (talk) 20:29, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
 * A handful of party figures will always buck the nominee for one reason or another. Trump's surge of opposition in an unprecedented and notable event. Clinton's is standard. Therequiembellishere (talk) 06:27, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Is there a rule there is not to be articles on things unless they are unusual? Has the media written a great deal on this? No. Is it as notable as the Republican issue? No. (Although again the idea we can only have equally notable topics in order to make an article I don't think is any kind of rule. We have an article on USA Next even though AARP is much larger. And as makes sense AARP is the larger article by a good deal.) Have they noted this in regard to some regions anyway? Yes. Are we meaning media not linked to the candidate? Considering some of it is papers and magazines endorsing Hillary Clinton, yes.--T. Anthony (talk) 06:55, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2016 October 11.  —cyberbot I   Talk to my owner :Online 22:46, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete The mayor of a town of 19,000 who doesn't even have his own page. Two C-list celebs. An RFK speechwriter with a stub for a page. And Cornel West (who I'm pretty sure was never a registered member of the Democratic Party). If you removed them, you'd have a list of nine people. There is no anti-Clinton movement within the Democratic Party, despite certain elements wishing there was. Jim Webb and the probably-never-a-Democrat-in-the-first-place West are really the only people even remotely relevant in regards to the 2016 election. This smacks of people trying to create a false equivalence between the candidates. Furthermore, the GOP mutiny against Trump, especially after the convention, remains one of the largest storylines in this election. The reason we made a list article for Republicans opposing Trump as opposed to "Republican and conservative support for Hillary Clinton" a-la Republican and conservative support for Barack Obama in 2008 is because the sheer number of Republicans - and prominent Republicans, not just the mayors of towns with 19,000 people - who oppose his candidacy. Hillary Clinton is not facing any-mutiny from the Democratic Party, let alone one even remotely close to the size of Trump's. At most the people (with articles) should be listed on each candidate's endorsements page for their preferred presidential candidate. MAINEiac4434 (talk) 03:43, 12 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete Per MAINEiac4434. Trump opposition is rampant and reaches to the highest level of government and intelligentsia. Clinton party opposition is sparse and mostly isolated to celebrities. It's an attempt to be unbiased but in reality is unbalanced. Therequiembellishere (talk) 03:55, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Polls may not really show that, though you think they would. They show Trump opposition is higher, but Democrats not voting for Clinton looked about average in the most recent one I saw. (Also only one celebrity still looks to be on it.) It might be higher in parts of Appalachia, Iowa, or parts of Wisconsin. There are journalists doing a few stories about it. I'm not claiming it's a huge phenomenon, but that it meets a standard of being verifiable and noted. (and for the record I ended my period as a registered Republican due in part to Trump.)--T. Anthony (talk) 06:33, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete Without any sitting federal- and state-level officials, the credibility of this article is weak. Jusfiq (talk) 13:25, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete - too short a list to matter. In every election a few partisans don't support their nominee, and I don't see how this list is notable. Nothing more than a pile of soapboxen. FWIW, #ImwithHer. Bearian (talk) 22:37, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete – Per MAINEiac4434. This article was obviously created in response to the well-established List of Republicans opposing Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016 (a no-brainer, considering hundreds have opposed Trump's candidacy from his own party and continue to do so). Indeed, this list of 15 people is simply too short, and I fail to see any political relevance or notability to the impending general election. Disclosure: I just don't like silly articles on Wikipedia seeking to create a false equivalence; Trump has many people leaving his party, Clinton does not -- get over it. —MelbourneStar ☆ talk 05:37, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep - I think this gives a perspective that there is an equivalent to the Trump-opposition whether it is small or not. It gives you perspective and that I think is indeed relevant –  J U M P G U R U   ■ ask ㋐㋜㋗ ■ 08:33, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
 * "gives a perspective that there is an equivalent to the Trump-opposition" -- the word equivelant means: equal of value. Hundreds of Trump opposers versus fifteen Clinton opposers is clearly not equal of value. Hence my comment (and the comments of others) above, that this list only serves as a 'false-equivalance'. —MelbourneStar ☆ <sup style="color:#407">talk 14:19, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Equivalent is a word, I agree, "keep" voters should stay away from. However there is evidence of pretty strong levels of defection in Ohio, Western Pennsylvania, and West Virginia. But "equivalence" is not why I favor keep. I favor keep because it can be valid sourced and is notable. Even if it were only of interest to Appalachia we do have articles like Mount Airy Fiddlers Convention, Vandalia Gathering, Urban Appalachian Council, and the entire Category:Affrilachian Poets as well as much of Category:Coal Wars. Articles can exist on topics not equally important to another article. As mentioned we have articles on USA Next and I could maybe add Pro-Life Alliance of Gays and Lesbians.--T. Anthony (talk) 15:37, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Yeah I think that's an explicitly political standard. There is something on Wikipedia about "undue weight" but I think that's more about an article making one side look bigger than it is. It's not "undue weight" to have an article on a topic of less media interest or significance than another similar article. There are articles on Black supremacy, Nicaraguan exceptionalism, Category:Front organizations, and maybe others could fit. It existing isn't giving "false equivalency."--T. Anthony (talk) 03:13, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. manufactured topic. Not actually discussed as such in the Rw; the arguments here are a ,osture of OR and political propaganda.  DGG ( talk ) 07:49, 19 October 2016 (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.