Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of state parties of the Democratic Party (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. WP:SNOW. Nominator should have read the very first sentence of WP:NOTDIR before invoking that section here. postdlf (talk) 00:50, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of state parties of the Democratic Party (United States)[edit]

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

This list was created as a content fork from Democratic Party (United States) and seems to violate WP:NOTDIRECTORY. There is an ongoing discussion on the party's talk page to determine whether the list can be retained there. gobonobo ⁺ ^c 17:08, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:33, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:33, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:33, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:33, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:NOTDIRECTORY does not fit as a criticism of this particular article, as a quick glance will show. Additionally, oppose per WP:LIST, and WP:MOS. At Wikipedia lists have a purpose. This list fits perfectly into two of the three purposes.WP:LISTPURP From that guidance:

" Lists have three main purposes:

Information: The list may be a valuable information source. This is particularly the case for a structured list. Examples would include lists organized chronologically, grouped by theme, or annotated lists.

Navigation:Lists which contain internally linked terms (i.e., wikilinks) serve, in aggregate, as natural tables of contents and indexes of Wikipedia. If users have some general idea of what they are looking for but do not know the specific terminology, they could browse the lists of basic topics and more comprehensive lists of topics, which in turn lead to most if not all of Wikipedia's lists, which in turn lead to related articles. Users without a specific research goal in mind might also find the articles listed in articles' see also sections useful. Lists are also provided in portals to assist in navigating their subjects, and lists are often placed in articles via the use of series boxes and other navigational templates."

Furthermore this list matches WP:LSC, WP:CSC Selection criteria

Selection criteria should be unambiguous, objective, and supported by reliable sources.
Every entry meets the notability criteria for its own non-redirect article in the English Wikipedia. This standard prevents Wikipedia from becoming an indiscriminate list, and prevents individual lists from being too large to be useful to readers. Many of the best lists on Wikipedia reflect this type of editorial judgment."

This is a clean, robust list that is used within a template. It is useful, unambiguous, objective, each member of the list meets notability requirements, each has its own non-redirect article. It is, I suggest, a valuable list of information, one that additionally aids navigation. Capitalismojo (talk) 18:07, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. If the members of the list are individually notable (have articles) then this is obviously good to keep, per wp:CLT that lists, categories, navigation templates are complementary. Also, somewhat related are recent AFDs in February 2014 for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Constitution Party of Alabama and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Justice Party of California, in which consensus was that separate state-specific articles were valid if there was enough coverage, but otherwise state articles for these minor parties should probably redirect to a national list-article or national party article. Here, for the Democratic party, there is likely tons of history and coverage so every state one is individually notable. Whether or not every state article is valid, though, a list of them is completely obviously valid. --do ncr am 19:31, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The only section of WP:NOTDIRECTORY I could find that this article potentially violates is the first section, specifically lists or repositories of loosely associated topics. However, the section itself states that it is okay to have lists “if their entries are relevant because they are associated with or significantly contribute to the list topic”. This isn’t a violation of policy and I fail to see the justification deletion. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 02:06, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This has a valid index function. American party politics are based on the primacy of state parties, for what it's worth; the national structures are more or less fundraising devices. The green links should not be in the body but that is an editing matter, not a notability question. Carrite (talk) 03:44, 6 June 2014 (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.