Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Democrat Party (United States)

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 8bitJake (talk | contribs) at 03:51, 7 June 2006 (→‎[[Democrat Party (United States)]]). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Democrat Party (United States)

This is a polemic and not an encyclopedia article. One also notes that there are two links in the references, and the second of these links contradicts the thesis of this article. But that doesn't matter; this article has a thesis, and is thereby encyclopedic unencyclopedic. Deville (Talk) 22:18, 6 June 2006 (UTC) I guess everyone read my comments as carefully as I did  :-) --Deville (Talk) 01:30, 7 June 2006 (UTC) [reply]

  • Comment Note the history of this article, which started out as a redirect to Democratic Party (United States) which Rjenson turned into something else [1] whereas the current version acts as if it's about the Democratic Party and Democratic Party (United States) is for historical context. CanadianCaesar Cæsar is turn’d to hear 22:43, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - This is idiotic.--8bitJake 03:51, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Per nom ... biased opinion piece. After deletion, it should be changed back to a redirect to Democratic Party (United States) BigDT 22:44, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep with a massive, massive cleanup and NPOVing. The use of the term "Democrat Party" as a possibly pejorative term has been advanced by such popular scholarly hacks like George Lakoff [2] around the idea of political "framing" of issues. --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:47, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • As the article itself states, another 'hack' includes William Safire (in a 1984 column):
      • "Who started this and when? Acting on a tip, I wrote to the man who was campaign director of Wendell Willkie's race against Franklin Delano Roosevelt. "In the Willkie campaign of 1940," responded Harold Stassen, "I emphasized that the party {...} should not be called a 'Democratic Party.' It should be called the 'Democrat party.' . . ." -- User:RyanFreisling @ 01:36, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but cleanup as above. It looks to me like there are grounds for having an article about this phrase (as opposed to simply redirecting to Democratic Party (United States)), but this one needs a substantial amount of improvement to be brought up to standard. Terraxos 23:26, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete & Redirect. Including this article in an encyclopedia dignifies a perjorative talk-radio term that is always used disparagingly. I appreciate the cleanup and NPOV sentiment, but the topic is too controversal to be cleaned up or NPOVed. I believe it should be deleted for the sake of Wikipedia's integrity. Griot 23:42, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or revert to redirect. Obvious POV fork. There should be one article about the party. Fan1967 23:57, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge & Redirect I thought it was really called the Democrat party and Democratic was just an improper common useage. Nertz 23:59, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Cleanup, Merge & Redirect per Badlydrawnjeff and Nertz. -- FRCP11 00:22, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep and edit for POV While I understand the concerns about including pejorative terms, I don't think they're necessarily valid, if the article does not display an overt bias. There are dozens of examples of pejorative terms that probably should be kept in WP, for documentation and to enhance understanding (see: nigger, kike).
Because this is documented, verifiable, and includes references to scholarly material, I think it is hard to argue that this article is, in itself, POV, though some of the material included in it should be reviewed to ensure NPOV stance (it is difficult to maintain such a stance in an inherently POV discussion, but we're not going to remove nigger, even if it takes a negative POV toward the use of the word--edit, perhaps, but not remove).
I think part of the perceived problem with this article is that it's also very close in name to another article. This is only a problem of perception--if the concepts are distinct (which in this case they are), the articles should be distinct. Merging should not be a course of action, nor is it a good compromise, since the terms are definitely distinct. Fearwig 00:23, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Persuaded by Fearwig. Cleanup and Keep, but add disambiguation to top of article. -- FRCP11 00:25, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. This discussion may need a ballot-stuffing tag, judging by the recruiting going on for deletion. -- FRCP11 00:27, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment I don't want to escalate any perception the commenter may have of 'vote stacking', but I'd be glad to refer the article to the editors I know of both right- and left-wing persuasion. This is the kind of thing that should be discussed openly with folks of all sorts of points-of-view (and hopefully folks with an interest in history and civics). I won't do so without approval/discussion though, in order to avoid any additional heat being added to the issue. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 00:54, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Take a look at my talk page if you have any doubt. Fearwig 00:58, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • I don't understand your response. Shall we take the discussion to your talk page to avoid cluttering up the VfD? Thanks. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 01:02, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • Sorry, I think it's significant. I was "recruited" to vote against this article on my talk page, which is how my attention was brought to it. I think the results of this vote will be less than representative of WP as a result. See User talk: Fearwig Fearwig 01:10, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
              • I am completely lost. What are you talking about? If editors are vote stacking, that's bad. If they are informing a broad base of editors with varying POV, I don't see the conflict. I don't think 'votes for deletion' are the exclusive purview of folks who watch the page. The difference is intent - to slant the results or just to broaden the base of the vote. I don't claim to know the political views of the folks who were contacted, so I can't say it's 'stacking'... but we definitely agree that stacking is certainly bad and not in the interests of WP. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 01:13, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                • I was told "Our old friend Rjensen is up to his tricks again," or somesuch, presumedly because I had a drawn-out talk discussion on American History with Rjensen at some point. I feel that's a very biased way to advertise an AfD, though I don't know for sure it is vote stacking since he did suggest I "weigh in" and not "vote to delete". I wonder if he did a talk page search for Rjensen and contacted everyone who's argued with him? Sorry, I'm not usually a conspiracy theorist. Fearwig 01:20, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Hehe. We just edit conflicted on this very phrase. I had the same response to the message on your talk page from Griot that (while clearly indicating his desire to delete) says he 'hope(s) you will weigh in on the topic'. That seems less than an outright attempt to instruct you on how to vote. Just my observation, you're welcome to your opinion (whether theory or fact), Fearwig. :) -- User:RyanFreisling @ 01:23, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
              • The most important thing is whether this article has merits on its own. It is simply an attempt to create another "Democratic Party" article using the perjorative. I would not approve of a Republicrat Party article for the same reason. Neither term is more than dictionary definition that merits inclusion in the main article namely Democratic Party (United States) and Republican Party (United States) - See my other reasons below. I understand your objections to being recruited - but I wouldn't let that get in the way of looking out for Wikipedia and the project to provide the best information to the public at large we can. Misdirection articles like this one are not helpful. --Northmeister 01:18, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
              • I think that if it is notable enough for scholarly research to have been performed specifically on the subject, it is notable enough for WP. If I am mistaken in my understanding that it has, then I am perhaps mistaken on my vote. Fearwig 01:21, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge & Redirect The use of this phrase as a perjorative is notable and historical fact. An enlightening and historically-based commentary on this topic can be found here [3], [4]. The perjorative nature of the phrase is not, however, appropriate as a basis for maintaining a separate article. A redirect and mention of the use of the phrase as a perjorative is a perfectly acceptable topic for the main article, 'Democratic Party'. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 00:27, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I don't know that rantings on a blog count as "enlightening and historically-based commentary" BigDT 00:42, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment A commentary on a blog (the Washington Monthly, in this case, or a UPenn 'language log') does not diminish the words of William Safire, President Hoover, etc. to 'rantings'. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 00:44, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment I don't know that just because information is gleaned from a blog it is automatically discounted. --kizzle 00:45, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge & Redirect per Ryan. --kizzle 00:41, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge & Redirect. Wikipedia is not a Dictionary. An article Democratic Party (United States) already exists on Wikipedia and treats the subject in the NPOV manner that it should be treated. Mention of that perjorative "Democrat Party" is okay in a criticism section of the Democratic Party article but does not warrant an article itself. The way the article reads now, it is as if it is about the Democratic Party in the United States and thus is a repeat of that topic. Since there is no Democrat Party and the term directly applies to the Democratic Party in the United States, it should be mentioned in that article and does not warrant an article of its own. Further, users of Wikipedia, especially children may be directed to the wrong article as a result of this article and not typing in the correct spelling. At best there should be a redirect to Democratic Party (United States)--Northmeister 00:49, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • That depends on the quantity of information available. I think it is a lacking article, but there is a great deal of information to be related, judging from the quantity of work that has apparently been done on the topic. I think the article should remove any similarity between itself and Democratic Party (United States) to focus on its distinction, however. Since your argument was not at all the rationale behind the nomination, I could not think it appropriate to vote "delete" on its basis, but it is your prerogative, of course. I agree that there should be a prominent redirect link, but not a redirect. Fearwig 01:17, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and Redirect No need to merge. The material is already adequately covered at the article on the Democratic Party. Refer to WP:NOTABILITY. This material does not deserve an offshoot article. Kasreyn 00:53, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and Redirect as per Kasreyn. ~ trialsanderrors 01:13, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete & Redirect as per numerous mentions above, deserve at most a mention in the Democratic Party article if even that, not an entire offshoot. Its used as a denigrating term also which is sad that some should feel the need to dedicate and maintain an entire article on a term republicans use to remove the association of democratic from Democratic Party. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 01:16, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete & Redirect Do we really need a separate article on the mispronuciation of something that already has its own article? --JW1805 (Talk) 01:38, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete & Redirect to Democratic party. The phrase isn't particularly notable. At the very least it ought to be renamed. There is no such thing as the "Democrat Party", so the title is highly deceptive. If kept, "Democrat Party (phrase)" would be better, per the recent Israeli apartheid (phrase). Derex 01:49, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

talk 02:28, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - the name is not significant (I am a lifelong member of the Democratic Party, and I have never seen or heard that name, except as a grammatical mistake) and I doubt that its use is widespread, even as an insult. Even if it was worthwhile, the page is way too long for a slogan. --Tjss(Talk) 02:31, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and redirect per above. KleenupKrew 03:10, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect as per above. --InShaneee 03:17, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Fearwig--RWR8189 03:20, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Democrat_Party_(United_States)&oldid=57298083"