Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Los Angeles County Young Democrats

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. BigDom 07:17, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Los Angeles County Young Democrats

Los Angeles County Young Democrats (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Fails WP:ORG, with no references showing "significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources." Warfieldian (talk) 14:29, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:31, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:31, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:31, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

• I'm torn. The organization gets four pages of hits at Google News, so it gets a lot of press; however it's mostly passing mentions rather than significant in-depth coverage. It has existed for 40 years and has a large membership. We would normally merge an article about a local organization like this into its parent/national organization, but I could find no indication that the group is affiliated with the state or national Young Democrats, so a merge isn't appropriate. Overall I am leaning toward weak keep on this one. --MelanieN (talk) 16:13, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
• Note Quite big organization; hope they could find more 3rd party sourcing. Smithsonian (talk) 17:31, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
• Delete per nom Lionel (talk) 22:59, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

• Comment - I'm pretty much hardline for keeping information on all political parties and their youth sections, but this is a county level group and the page is little more than a mission statement and an officer roster, which puts it in typical Delete country... It would be an easier Keep call if there were a little Something Something about history and legacy. As it sits, I shed no tears if it disappears. It seems like most county level youth political organizations would get the axe, but Los Angeles is really big, thus a little bit of mulling is in order. Carrite (talk) 04:56, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

To put "Los Angeles is really big" in context: if Los Angeles County were a state, it would be the 9th most populous state in the country. Or to put it another way, Los Angeles County is larger than 41 of the 50 states, each of which is entitled to have its own article. --MelanieN (talk) 01:32, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Comment: I looked again and couldn't find any significant independent coverage of this organization. Arguments based on size are not really the issue, WP:BIG. According to WP:ORG, "Notable is not synonymous with "fame" or "importance," and even organizations that editors personally believe are "important" are only accepted as notable if they can be shown to have attracted notice. No organization is exempt from this requirement, no matter what kind of organization it is." Warfieldian (talk) 01:54, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

BIG is only a small part of an Essay. BIG might possibly need to be rewritten for clarity; actual WP notability Guidelines do concern themselves with geographical area; WP:POLITICIAN, for example, and MelanieN was responding to a concern based on that exact type of quantification, namely a local organization rather than a national one, as noted by Carrite. Anarchangel (talk) 20:54, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

As with any other AfD debate, the question is notability. This group has gotten extensive press coverage over the years, and while I can't find an actual article exclusively ABOUT the group (as is probably true of many such groups), their doings and positions and internal elections have been consistently reported in major newspapers. [1] [2] [3] [4] Unfortunately most of these are behind paywalls so they can't be cited, but I continue to think the group meets the notability test. --MelanieN (talk) 01:10, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

• Merge & Redirect - per WP:ORG#Local units of larger organizations. Unless this local unit can pass WP:GNG, guideline prescribes that we follow this route, as far as I am aware. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 00:22, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Comment as noted above, there is no state or national organization to merge with. Warfieldian (talk) 18:39, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

The parent organization would be Young Democrats of America as evident by here. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 10:12, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:35, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

• Keep - All right, it's time for us to step up to the plate. The Google News hits mentioned above, primarily pay-per-view cites from the LA Times, indicate that this organization is probably of sufficient stature to merit encyclopedic coverage. Few other county-level youth sections of political parties would be. It's an abysmal article and a bad precedent, but it seems that this group slides over the notability bar for organizations. Carrite (talk) 17:03, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
• Keep I do not share Carrite's reservations as they are a concern of content, and therefore the talk page. Notability for the subject is established. Perhaps one day the forlorn and neglected WP:RFCs waiting for participants will instead be regularly reviewed and resolved by admins, and content can be added quickly and without edit warring. Or maybe that would just attract the power hungry dabblers who currently pursue dubious prestige by entering into the meta-game arena combat at AFD ANI etc. Anarchangel (talk) 11:34, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Comment: If the notability of this article has been established by significant coverage that covers the 'subject directly in detail' with 'no original research' which is more than 'a trivial mention,' then please point to it so I can support keeping this article as notable. Warfieldian (talk) 12:52, 26 March 2011 (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.