Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Political party strength in Puerto Rico


 * 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) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:50, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Political party strength in Puerto Rico

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Delete and userfy until which time it is complete: I understand how this article can be useful but it is very incomplete, in particular in older information, and gathering this information will take time and effort. In the meantime, we remain with an article that conveys no real information and could even be misleading to our readers. It can be userfied to my User space or the the article's original contributor if this is the result. Cerejota (talk) 00:01, 15 February 2009 (UTC) *Delete This article is boderline original research. First, Puerto Rico is not a U.S state and comparing political parties in Puerto Rico to U.S parties is misleading and wrong. A quick glance at the political history of Puerto Rico will show that measuring "political strength" can't be done only by elections results. There are many political parties in the history of the island that have influenced the political status without a democratic election from the creation of an autonomous government under Spanish rule to the commonwealth constitution. It was not until 1949 that the first governor was elected by Puerto Ricans. If this article is keep, it will need a complete rewrite using historical sources related to the island and using a different criteria and format than the one used in other articles in Template:Political party strength in U.S. states. --J.Mundo (talk) 18:00, 16 February 2009 (UTC) Change to Keep, article has improved and sources has been added. --J.Mundo (talk) 12:23, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Puerto Rico-related deletion discussions.   —Cerejota (talk) 00:03, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep How possibly could this article be misleading? It's part of the larger series of articles Political party strength in U.S. states, all of which are progressing toward completion. That an article is incomplete is no reason to delete it. Qqqqqq (talk) 00:06, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Moving the article to a user namespace would essentially guarantee that the article would never benefit from future collaboration in researching some of this missing historical information. Political party strength in California, Political party strength in Indiana, and Political party strength in New York are good examples of articles in this series that a number of editors have worked to research and expand nearly to completion, although there are details missing here and there, particularly for further back in history. That's the nature historical research, though&mdash;gaps in information are filled in as more researchers become interested in uncovering these missing details. I am confident that the information required to complete this article is out there; finding it might be difficult, but I have started to fill in details based on other related Wikipedia articles. I think a Template:Expert-subject might be called for, though. I will contact the official historians of the Puerto Rico Senate and House, or other appropriate officials, by e-mail to ask if they might be able to point Wikipedia editors in the right direction. Qqqqqq (talk) 01:19, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep being incomplete isn't a reason to delete something and the article clearly does contain useful information. Tag it with Incomplete if you must. Hut 8.5 11:15, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - completion is not a requirement for Wiki articles. matt91486 (talk) 13:36, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep; every article on Wikipedia is incomplete. Powers T 00:22, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Part of a series in Template:Political party strength in U.S. states.--T. Anthony (talk) 12:13, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment What the article purports to do, and thus states such at the outset, is to show which parties won elections, not which parties had more informal influence in the island's politics. But if you feel that another perspective on political parties on the island is required, why not add narrative describing this larger scope of political organizing, rather than trashing the whole idea for an article? Also, I don't believe that the article compares political parties in Puerto Rico to those in the U.S., nor does it assert that P.R. is a state; it simply employs Template:United States topic. Qqqqqq (talk) 18:32, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment The historian of the Senate emailed me a document that lists all Senators who served from 1917 through 2007. I've added add these specific party compositions following every election since 1917; hopefully this will eliminate any original research aspects of this article. Qqqqqq (talk) 20:14, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong keep This article provides valuable information on the confusing partisan political situation of Puerto Rico available in no other wikipedia article. Pr4ever (talk) 22:01, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong keep Lack of substance is no reason for deletion. It is a "stub" as is and a work in progress, that is why we have the classification of "stubs" in Wikipedia. I am sure that with time it will become a formitable article. Tony the Marine (talk) 14:27, 19 February 2009 (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.