Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of state parties of the Democratic Party (United States) (2nd nomination)


 * 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 speedy keep. Per WP:SK, nomination withdrawn and no outstanding delete !votes. (non-admin closure) Sam Sailor Talk! 08:24, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

List of state parties of the Democratic Party (United States)
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Since I removed the inline external links to the parties' websites (per WP:ELLIST), all that remains of this article are internal links to the 53 state/territorial Democratic parties' (plus Democrats Abroad) articles, all of which are already in the Democratic Party (United States) navbox. I don't believe the article is in violation of WP:NOTDIR (which was all that was discussed the first time the article was nominated for deletion); however, I don't think the article adds anything by merely repeating the navbox. Graham (talk) 04:34, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Graham (talk) 05:07, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Graham (talk) 05:07, 28 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep No valid reason to delete has been given. Lists are not navboxes, and categories are not lists. We have various ways of organizing and categorizing information, and there is no reason to delete a legitimate list just because the material is also organized into a category or a navbox. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  06:49, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep. (EC) It is a reasonable list. It can/should be developed to include some information about them, perhaps in a tabular format.  Sorry to be simply contrary, but for example, one reasonable version would be to have a column of the names, and to have a second column of external links to the state websites, or for the second column to be a list of factoids of some type taken from the state websites (like year the state party was founded) with references to the state websites (so pretty much restoring the state websites, either way).  A list-article can include photos and maps and red-links and diverse facts and references.  See wp:CLT for an explanation how Categories / Lists / navigation templates are complementary. -- do  ncr  am  06:54, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment. The editing stripping down the list and then this AFD is poor timing, right when the various state parties might be taking different positions in the Democratic national convention, and right when it might be relevant for readers to be able to look up stuff and see patterns across states, from info that could be arrayed here.  (I wonder offhand what's different about Utah in the corresponding Republican list, is it just that the state has a lot of Mormons, or is the state party organized differently than other ones?  A state list can array relevant info showing it is the same as most others or very different in some way.)  Is the List of state parties of the Republican Party (United States) magically okay because it put the website links into references that list out below?  If one is gutted the other should be gutted... or better not to gut either.  I think the previous version of this article should be restored right now, with just the addition of the AFD tag for the moment, until this gets cleared up.  It is not okay to selectively gut all of one party's stuff, right in the middle of the news going on. -- do  ncr  am  07:07, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's fair to describe the edits as "stripping down". All that was removed was:
 * The inline external links: The first sentence of WP:EL provides that external links "should not normally be placed in the body of an article" and the guideline goes on to say, "Exceptions are rare."
 * The infobox: WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE says that "the purpose of an infobox [is] to summarize (and not supplant) key facts that appear in the article". Given that the removed infobox template is designed for an article about a political party (rather than a list such as this one), it's no surprise that the infobox in no way summarized the contents of the article – in fact, nearly all the information in the infobox was not in the article body and nor would it be suitable for it to be. I'll reply to your comment on the article talk page regarding this.


 * I do hope that you're assuming good faith when you use the word "selectively". (Not that it should matter, but my doing this certainly wasn't an anti-Democratic thing. I'm not American, but I'm certainly hoping the Democrats do well this November – God help your country if Trump were to gain power.) The fact that there is an ongoing convention shouldn't mean that inappropriate content cannot be removed asymmetrically as other stuff exists.
 * I do hope that you're assuming good faith when you use the word "selectively". (Not that it should matter, but my doing this certainly wasn't an anti-Democratic thing. I'm not American, but I'm certainly hoping the Democrats do well this November – God help your country if Trump were to gain power.) The fact that there is an ongoing convention shouldn't mean that inappropriate content cannot be removed asymmetrically as other stuff exists.


 * I recognize that categories, lists, and navigation templates serve distinct yet complementary functions; however, I did not see what value was added in this particular case by having a list in addition to a category and a navbox with no differences in their content. You have demonstrated that the article could become valuable with the addition of more information (which I had not contemplated). You're right that the article is worth keeping, so I withdraw my nomination. Thanks for your work on this, . Graham (talk) 00:14, 29 July 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.