- Yale College Democrats (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
The Yale Dems page was recently swiftly recommended as an AfD with questionable evidence for deletion. I respectfully ask that this decision be overturned for the following reasons.
On notability, the original request by GrapedApe for deletion claims the page has no original notability and inherits its notability from both the University and the CDA. However, as the 37 sources (local, state, and national) testify, the organization has "significant coverage" as outlined in Wikipedia:Notability and independent of both organizations.
On the redirect to College Democrats of America, the Yale College Democrats is not officially linked to the CDA, and thus a redirect would be misleading. There is substantial information within the Yale Dems page that cannot be replicated on the CDA page, as the deletion discussion group promised.
On the overall deletion discussion, the original request was made as a sweep of AfDs by GrapedApe that resulted in the elimination of several liberal college groups from Wikipedia (See: Harvard College Democrats, Texas College Democrats, Notre Dame Queer Film Festival, Bruin Democrats, all recommended for deletion by GrapedApe) while adding content to conservative groups (See: Republican Party (United States), List of chairpersons of the College Republicans). The user's nomination was then approved largely on the argumentation from User:RightCowLeftCoast, whose profile claims the user "recognizes that many articles on Wikipedia have liberal bias and understand that other editors may attempt to protect that bias, even if it is against the pillar neutrality."
The page warrants an objective debate over deletion, and I respectfully request that administrators reconsider the merits of this much-frequented page on Wikipedia. Tsblackmon (talk) 18:44, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I have notified the editors involved in the original Afd at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yale College Democrats. I don't monitor RCLC's contribution history, but I have noticed that he/she has !voted redirect for various articles on conservative candidates, too. I don't want to "out" User:Tsblackmon with publicly available information, but it does appear that he should disclose a COI. Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) may be relevant here. Otherwise, I have no strong opinion on this. Location (talk) 19:15, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- (edit conflict)I was informed of this DR here.
- Please make arguements on the basis of policies, not on the basis of who commented. I have been involved in a number of AfDs, including those that are about College Republican organizations, that I have supported a redirect, so this has nothing to with the fact that this group is a Democrat group.
- Also please look at WP:ORG#Local units of larger organizations, the organization has received significant coverage, which my opinion does state, however the vast majority and weight of that coverage is from that group's local area. Coverage that originates outside of that local area is at best passing mention, and IMHO does not (in total) add up to significant coverage of the organization. This is the primary reasoning for the redirect.
- If the organization is independent of, is not part of of the group, who is the subject of College Democrats article, than that article may need to be renamed or reworded to reflect that there are different College Democrat organizations. In doing so a section about the Yale Democrats can be included in such a reworded article. Another possibility is that the organization, being part of Yale University, could have a section on that article page.
- If the subject of this AfD is independent of Yale University, then it is an independent organization, and not a constituent of a larger organization, and then the AfD should be reconsidered as then it's notability will have to be determined differently against a stand-alone WP:ORG review, which it would pass.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:26, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- As RightCow admits, this comes down to a question of degree. Having established that the page should not be a subsidiary of the CDA, we should now compare the notability of this page with other pages within the Yale affiliation in order to establish a degree of notability appropriate for retention/deletion. For context, see Eliezer Society, Yale Model Congress, Mixed Company of Yale, Just Add Water (improv troupe), Purple Crayon, Exit Players, Red Hot Poker, and Afro-American Cultural Center at Yale (to name a few), all of which display significantly less notability and external references under WP:ORG than the page in question. If we are to assume that the dozens of Yale-affiliated pages with independent Wikipedia pages in List of Yale University student organizations stand up to this test, a page for the more notable Yale College Democrats must, by definition, warrant a separate page.Tsblackmon (talk) 20:19, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse close but allow the redirect to be changed as normal (redirect targets aren't binding). On Wikipedia, we assume good faith of others and nakedly accusing editors of political bias without proof isn't acceptable. Besides, very few student groups at a single school are notable enough for individual articles. With the nominator wanting deletion and two people saying to redirect, there's absolutely no way the debate possibly could have been closed as 'keep'. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:51, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn. There seem to be COI's all over the place here, and I want to make it clear that I find it very uncomfortable that such mudslinging is happening on this page. However, I must reluctantly endorse an overturn here. I have looked over both the original AFD discussion and the List of Yale University student organizations referenced above. It seems the original discussion did not take into account the relative notability of the original page, which seems to be the crux of the problem. In comparison to the other organizations listed, this page has several more verifiable references. I disagree wholeheartedly with the tactics, but I must endorse the end result, overturning deletion.--WhizKid462 (talk) 21:17, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Having a political interest is not really a conflict of interest, especially in this instance where politics wasn't even mentioned in the AFD. Being an elected official responsible for promoting an organisation while editing the article for that organisation here, however, is a very obvious conflict of interest. But you should feel free to explain what prompted you to come here and lodge an WP:OSE !vote using an account that hasn't edited since January 2009. Stalwart111 00:56, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse close and refer obvious conflict of interest to WP:COIN. That creating a page for your association is/was a requirement of your elected role is of no interest to editors here. You are clearly WP:NOTHERE to build Wikipedia but to promote your organisation (see WP:PROMO and WP:NOBLE). The AFD had nothing to do with politics - RCLC made an argument that referenced WP policy and that view was endorsed by another editor and not disputed by the nominator. There were literally no editors that argued keep, despite the attempts immediately afterward to edit-war the article back into existence by reverting the redirect. Having editors who have not contributed here since 2009 suddenly show up to comment at DRV speaks volumes (see WP:MEAT). We absolutely should not, "now compare the notability of this page with other pages", because, 1. WP:OSE and 2. DRV is not AFD, round two. Suggest if you want to recreate the article, that you do so in your own userspace (at, say, User:Tsblackmon/Yale College Democrats draft) and then return here to ask exactly that. You would need to demonstrate notability (not just with comparisons to other articles) and substantiate that it is not simply an exact recreation of a previously AFD-deleted article. And you would obviously need to address your conflict of interest, too. As for the close - not the greatest of WP:NACs but, again, there was not a single dissenting opinion. Stalwart111 00:44, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse AFD was proper, redirect rationale was legit, and those making allegations of political bias should meet kettle.--GrapedApe (talk) 02:01, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- CommentThe implication of political bias by me is especially stupid allegation by Tsblackmon, since I AFD'd or PROD'd all local chapters of College Democrats and College Republicans. Like this, this, and this.--GrapedApe (talk) 01:52, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse A review of the original article in the history shows how little noteworthy content there was. The first paat gives a list of routine political club activity and a list of the notable people who have spoken at their meetings, and seems to take direct responsibility for the club for the enactment of major legislation. the second part list the candidates they campaigned for. The third talks about the tragic death of the former club president. None of this is worth an encyclopedia article. It is possible for a political clib at a university like Yale to be notable, but there is no evidence for it. Some of the other Yale organization listed here are distinctive to Yale, or otherwise of historical or current importance. DGG ( talk ) 03:00, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
|
