Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of state Libertarian Parties in the United States

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 DavidLeighEllis (talk) 23:30, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of state Libertarian Parties in the United States[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This page serves no purpose other than to be a coatrack for external links. TechBear | Talk | Contributions 14:39, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:10, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:10, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:10, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:10, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep, nominator seems not to have looked carefully at the list, which indexes individual Wikipedia articles on the state parties, a standard navigational list per WP:LISTPURP. The external links can obviously be removed. See WP:NOTCLEANUP and WP:ATD. Nominator also misunderstands what "coatrack" means here. postdlf (talk) 15:40, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Response The links can be folded into the larger article for the party, as was done with Green Party of the United States; there is no need for a separate list. External links to the state affiliate websites belong in the article for that state party affiliate (most of which are themselves of questionable encyclopedic value, but that is a separate issue.) TechBear | Talk | Contributions 17:08, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Merging the list into another article ≠ deletion. Have you read WP:NOTCLEANUP and WP:ATD yet? postdlf (talk) 17:41, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - Useful navigational function for a set of local organizational blue links... Carrite (talk) 16:48, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - An additional comment for those of you from countries outside the US and Canada... It is worth noting that traditionally state and provincial level units of political parties are semi-autonomous, raising funds, producing literature, writing platforms, holding conventions, and electing officers on their own. The national parties are actually something of an illusion, it is the provincial and state parties that are actually the fundamental unit of political organization. This is somewhat less true, perhaps, of small groups like the Libertarian Party, but it is nevertheless a fact that scholars very frequently key on state-level political organizations (or compare, contrast, or agglomerate the histories of such regional groups) rather than the national unit. Carrite (talk) 16:48, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The greenlinks should take the form as footnotes for each listing; they shouldn't appear in the body of the list. This is an editing matter. Carrite (talk) 16:52, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - To quote from Wikipedia's policy on External Links:
... it is not Wikipedia's purpose to include a lengthy or comprehensive list of external links related to each topic. No page should be linked from a Wikipedia article unless its inclusion is justifiable according to this guideline and common sense. The burden of providing this justification is on the person who wants to include an external link.
And further:
Wikipedia does not provide a comprehensive web directory to every official website. Wikipedia does not attempt to document or provide links to every part of the subject's web presence or provide readers with a handy list of all social networking sites. Complete directories lead to clutter and to placing undue emphasis on what the subject says.
TechBear | Talk | Contributions 17:14, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- ...and? How does dumping that text here respond to anything we've said? postdlf (talk) 17:39, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Snow keep per Postdlf and Carrite. Nothing wrong with this list except the inline links, which can be turned into footnotes or deleted per the normal editing process. Even a merge as suggested by the nominator would not result in a deletion decision here.--Arxiloxos (talk) 22:50, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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.