Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Democrat Party (United States)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Keep. This article is well researched, thoughtful and will be helpful to the majority of readers. Jozil
[edit] Phrase
Would the re-creation of this article (preferably in extended form) under Democrat Party (Phrase) be a violation of this decision, since the consensus was so unclear, and (I gather) the main basis of the argument for its deletion/merging was its potential for confusion with Democratic Party (United States)? It should properly be called a phrase, after all, and not a seperate party. Just curious--I'm not planning to take this course of action at present. Fearwig 04:56, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
- I second this proposal. --kizzle 05:44, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
- I support this proposal as well. This merger was a very poor choice of action, just creating a situation ripe for confusion. A separate article, under a slightly different title, is the right answer. ---Charles 06:53, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
- Yes a separate "Phrase" article will work. Rjensen 06:57, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
- It would be more accurate to call it "Democrat Party (misnomer)". Whatever the parenthetical term is, it shouldn't be capitalized. JamesMLane t c 08:36, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
- Good point on capitalization, though I think "misnomer" implies accidental error when (often) none exists. Fearwig 11:10, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
- It would be more accurate to call it "Democrat Party (misnomer)". Whatever the parenthetical term is, it shouldn't be capitalized. JamesMLane t c 08:36, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
- Yes a separate "Phrase" article will work. Rjensen 06:57, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
- I support this proposal as well. This merger was a very poor choice of action, just creating a situation ripe for confusion. A separate article, under a slightly different title, is the right answer. ---Charles 06:53, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
- I highly support this, but I don't know if DRV is the better route for it. "Misnomer," however, is not a good place to put it, "phrase" works fine. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:13, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
I think you guys are beating a dead horse. The article was a POV fork thinly disguised as an article. Please review the discussion of why this so-called article didn't deserve a place on wiki. I think we should let this stinker die a natural death. Griot 11:38, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
- to claim this ignores literally hundreds of years of history. I actually don't think the Wiki is better off without this article. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:39, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
- "Hundreds of years of history"? What we're talking about here is a handful of political opponents of the Democratic Party using the party's name incorrectly. Democrat Party isn't a "phrase," a phrase being an expression or manner of speech. It isn't a "misnomer," in that it isn't used accidentally. R.I.P. Griot 11:56, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
- I'm assuming you didn't read the article prior to voting delete on this, then? I'm not sure where you get "handful," for instance. This has been a deliberate action for generations now, extremely well sourced. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:23, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
- "Hundreds of years of history"? What we're talking about here is a handful of political opponents of the Democratic Party using the party's name incorrectly. Democrat Party isn't a "phrase," a phrase being an expression or manner of speech. It isn't a "misnomer," in that it isn't used accidentally. R.I.P. Griot 11:56, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
