Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shelby County Republican Party


 * 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   no consensus. Stifle (talk) 08:47, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Shelby County Republican Party

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

County level political organizations are not notable rogerd (talk) 15:07, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. This may only be a county level, but it is the county for Memphis, TN which is a major city, making it notable.  65.121.141.34 (talk) 15:20, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Is this even a county-level organization? Yes or no, I still don't see the significance, and the article doesn't claim any. Hairhorn (talk) 15:51, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Political parties do not inherit notability (or lack thereof) from their locales. -- Explodicle (T/C) 16:08, 27 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment Branches of national groups need to prove stand-alone notability through significant in-depth coverage in reliable sources that also proves that they are not of local interest only, see WP:LOCAL. Drawn Some (talk) 15:50, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Tennessee Republican Party unless sources are discovered which satisfy the notability criteria. -- Explodicle (T/C) 16:08, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep as notable, see discussion below. -- Explodicle (T/C) 18:31, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd like to comment that I'm well aware of WP:ORG but strongly disagree with its claim that local interests need coverage from elsewhere in order to be considered notable. There is no firm definition of what is "local" (a building? a city? a planet?) and this invites personal bias into the decision. I am concerned that we may be deleting perfectly verifiable topics because we do not have the desire to maintain them. -- Explodicle (T/C) 14:47, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Common usage of the term "local media" refers to those that cover a given metropolitan area. If you don't understand that, I don't know what I can do to help you.  There is no precedent for keeping articles about political organizations at a lower level than the U.S. state, except for Chicago, which is given considerable national attention.  --rogerd (talk) 17:12, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think "lack of precedent" should be a reason for deletion if we're trying to build an encyclopedia of unprecedented scope. We keep articles on topics that influence far fewer than the 900,000 people in Shelby county because they are backed up with independent sources. Assuming that the common usage of "local media" pertains to a metropolitan area... so what? What's so bad about having lots of articles about local interests? -- Explodicle (T/C) 18:37, 28 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep as no valid reason for deletion as given, just a subjective one apparently based on opinion rather than any guideline. An organization is only not notable if it hasn't been the subject of non-trivial coverage by third parties... that probably isn't the case here.--Chiliad22 (talk) 17:06, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The nominator's (and my) concern is that the article does not meet the Notability guideline. Most of the pages from the search you conducted appear to be discussing members of the party rather than the party's history and platform. Would you please cite the specific (not Google search) sources that can be used as the basis for an article? -- Explodicle (T/C) 17:37, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The nominator didn't mention anything about the notability guideline... just made a subjective judgment about what is and isn't notable. --Chiliad22 (talk) 17:40, 27 May 2009 (UTC)


 * "not notable" is a perfectly valid reason for a deletion nomination. Not all deletion debate has to be quoting guidelines back and forth. Further, there are no guidelines about the notability of political parties. Hairhorn (talk) 17:42, 27 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Without mentioning any guidelines it's a very weak argument. What if my vote to keep had just said "Keep - it's notable"? It would have been pretty pointless. At any rate, I've run a search on Newsbank and see many articles about this org. "SHELBY GOP IS CREATING A LOCAL CODE OF ETHICS", 10/3/96, Commercial Appeal. "GOP TAPS FORMER COMIC AS COUNTY CHAIRPERSON", "GOP OFFICE OPENS", 600+ results, at a glance many are about the party, rather than casual mentions of the party. --Chiliad22 (talk) 17:47, 27 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I just ran the same search at http://www.newsbank.com and didn't get anything for "Shelby County Republican Party" or "SHELBY GOP IS CREATING A LOCAL CODE OF ETHICS". Would you please cite the specific sources in question? -- Explodicle (T/C) 17:54, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Uh, I did. I gave the newspaper and date. Not all Newsbank accounts have the same access - does yours get the Commercial Appeal? I use a special account that has access to everything in Newsbank, I think. There's also a 12/6/91 article "COUNTY GOP SWITCHES TO PARTY VOTING IN PRIMARIES", page A1. This is an importance source because it is about how this org. switched to using a primary to pick candidates, the first time any party in Tennessee had apparently done that for over 100 years (the practice soon spread). --Chiliad22 (talk) 18:01, 27 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I couldn't verify the one that had a date, but after searching the Commercial Appeal website directly I was able to find a couple articles here and here that I think are enough to establish notability. -- Explodicle (T/C) 18:31, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Great. I also added an older article that has a nice rundown of the party's history, unfortunately it isn't on their webpage... --Chiliad22 (talk) 18:36, 27 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment That's still all local stuff: LOCAL code of ethics, COUNTY chairperson. Drawn Some (talk) 19:18, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * So what? -- Explodicle (T/C) 19:28, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia isn't a paper encyclopedia; there's no size limit. We can include articles of mostly local interest if they're verifiable. However, if you search Google books, there's a reference suggesting this party was of regional importance across the south, as it was one of the first where southern white conservatives joined a Republican Party in major numbers, beating the regional trend by a good two decades. So this might be interesting to students of political science, rather than just local historians. --Chiliad22 (talk) 19:57, 27 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete for the same reason I feel that a bunch of minor parties with only local importance should be deleted: While this is not a paper encyclopedia, it is also not a place to collect information on every local group known to mankind. While I can see exceptions to the ban on county-level party organizations in the cases of, for example, the Chicago Democratic Party (due to the Daley machine) and the New York Democratic Party (due to the historic position of Tammany Hall and its effect on American politics in several instances), these are decidedly exceptions that prove the rule.  I will also note that I would extend this exception if a party were otherwise known for particular scandals, etc.  However, simply being a party organization in a big city or big county doesn't quite cut it IMHO.Tyrenon (talk) 20:31, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Not every group known to mankind, just every one we can write a decent article on, due to the existence of sources. If we can write a proper article that complies with all policies and guideliens... it seems rather pointless to discard it anyway because it's not important "enough" - it suggests you're worried about a space limit we don't actually have. Your argument just mentions your own opinion, no policy or guideline. WP:N/WP:ORG, guidelines, and WP:V, a policy, support inclusion of this article (based on sources cited in the article and mentioned at this AFD). --Chiliad22 (talk) 20:58, 27 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment There is little precedent for listing local party organizations. The only ones that are currently in wikipedia that are notable (i.e. known outside the local area) are Cook County Democratic Organization and Tammany Hall (a historical org).  There are no other local GOP organizations having articles in wikipedia, and the only other Democrat orgs are Hamilton County Democratic Party (currently being considered for deletion) and Henderson County Democratic Party North Carolina (also being considered for deletion).  At least the NC article includes the state since there are 9 Shelby Counties and 10 Hamilton Counties in the US.  The Hamilton County Dem. article was previously deleted, but was then about the same county in Indiana.  --rogerd (talk) 21:50, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Well you can always rename an article if the name is ambiguous, that doesn't require an AFD. As for there not being a lot of other articles like this... that's not by itself a reason to delete this one. Years ago there were almost no articles on National Forests, for example... that doesn't mean we deleted the new articles every time someone created one. At any rate, you say there's no inclusion guideline for political organizations, but there is one for organizations, and this article meets it. --Chiliad22 (talk) 22:00, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I still maintain that this organization NN because it is not well known outside the local area. I live in Indianapolis, and the local county GOP and Dem orgs get extensive coverage by the local news media, but that doesn't make them notable to an encyclopedia that serves the entire English speaking world. --rogerd (talk) 22:08, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * But that's just your opinion. Policy and guidelines just ask for meaningful coverage by reliable sources. There's no real harm in having articles that aren't subjectively notable to everyone in the country or the world... that would be a silly limitation of our scope. We have no need to delete articles just because they aren't important enough to some arbitrary number of people. --Chiliad22 (talk) 22:11, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:ORG (which you cited) says "attention solely by local media is not an indication of notability". The only two cites in the article are from the local newspaper.  --rogerd (talk) 22:20, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I've mentioned a book reference in this AFD. There also references in the Knoxville News Sentinel, the Tennessean, and 15+ by the Associated Press. --Chiliad22 (talk) 22:28, 27 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete. Not below the state level, except for major cities. Every party organization in every country will have trivial cites. I could if I wanted to find one for every Electoral District, let alone county, where the local newspapers are online. I can conceive of an encyclopedia that goes down to that level,and it might even be an extension of the present WEP. But we have enough problems dealing with articles on   international politics and major fiction, without opening that can of worms. The best criterion for local groups, is that of beibgng of some interest to people outside that immediate region.   DGG (talk) 01:41, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * beibgng? At any rate, this is another delete vote that fails to mention any guideline or policy. And since when do we delete an article because there are problems on unrelated articles? That makes no sense.--Chiliad22 (talk) 02:55, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * As I tried to point out before: (1) the nomination does mention a policy: notability (the same thing mentioned by most delete votes), and (2) there is currently no policy specifically on the notability of political parties, no consensus was ever reached. You can't cite a policy that doesn't exist. Hairhorn (talk) 19:19, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The nominator mentions the word nobility, but even if he did mean WP:N, it's not a policy, it's a guideline. At any rate, the notability guideline asks for multiple non-trivial sources, which I've added to the article. There's no guideline on political party notability, but there is one on organization notability, so I've cited that. --Chiliad22 (talk) 22:13, 28 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions.  -- TexasAndroid (talk) 22:03, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.  -- TexasAndroid (talk) 22:03, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Guideline, policy, whatever. None of them are rules. Which is why it's important to present your opinion in an AfD debate, not simply cite guidelines or policies back and forth. Hairhorn (talk) 22:57, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think deleting an article that meets all inclusion guidelines improves Wikipedia, as IAR requires. You are apparently just trying to prove I've breached some unwritten rule of AFD behavior by actually expecting people to have a policy or guideline based reason for deletion? Otherwise I don't see your point. Of course it's important not to just quote policy mindlessly, and that isn't what I've done here. --Chiliad22 (talk) 23:06, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * No, that's not what you've done. But you do seem to think any contribution that doesn't cite a policy or guideline is somehow invalid. Usually it's implicit anyway, most people just interpret things charitably and recognize it. Asking things to be spelled out every time is needlessly bureaucratic.


 * Also, unless I'm on another planet, whether the entry "meets all the requirements" is exactly what we're debating. Hairhorn (talk) 23:24, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * You seem to be debating my behavior more than the article. At any rate, my point was that other than using the word notability, the deletion arguments do not seem to have much to do with policy or guidelines. As WP:AFD says, "AfDs are a place for rational discussion of whether an article is able to meet Wikipedia’s article guidelines and policies". Guidelines and policies, not personal opinions, are the thing to be discussing here. --Chiliad22 (talk) 23:36, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Many, many articles are deleted solely for lack of notability, and there are lengthy guidelines for notability. There's nothing unusual going on here. Hairhorn (talk) 23:47, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * And I've explained why these article meets those lengthy guidelines for notability. I'm really not understanding what your issue with me is here. --Chiliad22 (talk) 00:24, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't have an issue with you, this is just a debate. And I'm saying that "you didn't cite a policy or guideline" isn't a good enough defense of the article; this has been the essence of at least half your posts. Hairhorn (talk) 00:49, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
 * That nobody can coherently explain why a policy or guideline supports deletion is a big problem for people wanting to delete an article. And if it's only half of my point... I'm not seeing why we need to agonize over it so much. It's not like I'm trying to get the article kept on a pure technicality, I'm just pointing out that people arguing for deletion aren't making policy-based arguments. --Chiliad22 (talk) 01:02, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
 * You can't cite a policy that doesn't exist. Hairhorn (talk) 04:42, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
 * And I've explained to you several times I'm citing WP:N and WP:ORG, guidelines that do exist. --Chiliad22 (talk) 12:17, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Head, meet wall. Hairhorn (talk) 12:34, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
 * What is that supposed to mean? You are being at best unclear, at worst, insulting. I don't understand what your problem is here. --Chiliad22 (talk) 14:00, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Keep A local organ of a political party is notable if it has an influence on the politics of its state, or is in some way unique. An article on the Republican Party of McDowell County, West Virginia would be meaningless, because McDowell usually votes 85% Democratic making the GOP in that county irrelevant on the state stage. However, Shelby County contains the city of Memphis. 900,000 people live in Shelby County. 6 million live in Tennessee. Shelby County is also fairly evenly divided between the parties. This means that the Shelby County GOP exerts a great deal of influence on the internal politics of Tennessee. For this reason, it should be kept. Genovese12345 (talk) 05:43, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Wyoming [] has an article on its Republican Party. I thought I should contribute that piece of information due to the populations of the entities involved. Wyoming: 522,830 (2008 est). Shelby County: 897,402 (2000 pop). I would therefore argue that the Shelby County Republican Party, based on population, is probably far more notable than the Wyoming Republican Party, which does have an inclusion because it is a state. It should be noted that metro Memphis has a population of well over 1 million. --Genovese12345 (talk) 13:19, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
 * It bothers me that we even have to justify inclusion under these terms. In any other deletion discussion this would get thrown out as a WP:BIG argument, but since the arbitrary "metropolitan area" criterion is in place, it seems like an unfortunate extension of that logic. -- Explodicle (T/C) 13:54, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd like to note that under said criteria, I can rattle off a decent number of parties that would get included: Miami-Dade, FL; Fairfax County, VA; Los Angeles County, CA; etc. We could probably add a number of other counties before too long.  I'd also note that in the case of Wyoming, it has two dedicated US Senators and a Governor, not to mention a seat in the US House, giving it a bit more notability IMHO.Tyrenon (talk) 14:51, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Shelby county has its own U.S. congressperson, but there hasn't been a Republican in that office since Dan Kuykendall in 1975. -- Explodicle (T/C) 15:01, 29 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete or merge into the state article. Fails WP:ORG.  Vegaswikian (talk) 02:17, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Uh, how does it fail WP:ORG? Merely saying it does doesn't make it so. The guideline you cite says "A company, corporation, organization, team, religion, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in secondary sources" and we've shown evidence that this has been the subject of such coverage many times. Baring an explanation I don't see how this opinion can be taken seriously. --Chiliad22 (talk) 13:57, 2 June 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.