Talk:Youth of the Centre-Democrats

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Denmark Portal Youth of the Centre-Democrats falls within the scope of WikiProject Denmark, a project to create and improve Denmark-related Wikipedia articles. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, all interested editors are welcome!
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

The given {{prod}} is blabant anglo-centrism. CD is not an unsignificant party in Danish politics, although its influence has vaned over the years. CDU is an active political force, participating in national political life. --Soman 13:24, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

This is the English Wikipedia, and topics within should generally be notable within English speaking countries or at a global level. Crucially, the importance of topics should be sourced to respected English language publications, media etc. to satisfy WP:V, a fundamental policy of Wikipedia. The prod describes the parent party as minor, and holding no seats at any level, both of which statements are true and neither of which you have refuted. In any case, the prod is for the youth wing, which does not appear to be notable. I have nothing against this organisation and know nothing of its philosophies, it's purely a question of notability. By all means include more information about the importance of this youth organisation and attach links to verifying external sources in English. Deizio 13:42, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

The party obtained 1% of votes in last election. Thus it is notable. The wordings in the article on the parent party is highly POV. --Soman 13:48, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Which, the main party or the youth party? The prod only concerns the youth party. I stress again, I have never questioned the notability of the parent, merely noted that is is minor and holds no power at any level. A mention for the youth wing in the parent article would be fine. Deizio 14:05, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

This was the original prod reason: "There are zero English google results for this topic, 51 global unique results when excluding Wikipedia. This is the youth wing of a very minor political party which, by the parent article's admission, holds no seats or positions at any political level. Possibly suitable for a regional wiki".

Having been in touch with two people about this there is obviously some enthusiasm for this party out there which is important. However, if there is no verification of the significance of this topic I think a merge & redirect to the parent article could be the best way to go. Deizio 20:14, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

However, merger with parent party article screws up categorization and templates. Youth wings of political parties are significant in Scandinavia, significant enough to deserve separate articles. --Soman 07:58, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Topics don't bypass notability criteria just because their removal will "screw up" the categories. In any case, that would take a few minutes to sort out at the very most. If you care so deeply about this, why not bring it in line with WP:V? Deizio 10:32, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

By all means include more information about the importance of this youth organisation and attach links to verifying external sources in English.(Deizio) That would be my opinion as well. --Constanz - Talk 15:58, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

The article should stay. The party and organisation has existed for around 30 years. The party is in a crisis, yes, but remained influential until a few years ago. The youth wing elected candidates that stood for public office just like other political youth wings / parties do. If their members are / were on the ballot paper, that makes them notable enough. If tiny spots on the map of Scotland or New Zealand are notable enough, so is this one. Valentinian ^(talk) 22:10, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Given the de-prodding and opinion of several people that this should stay, I think the matter was closed a few weeks ago. However, I would say that different topics are weighed according to different criteria, if "tiny dots" on map represent established settlements where generations of humans have lived, loved and died and contributed to a shared history and identity, their notability is beyond question. The youth wing of a minor political party which holds no power at any level should at least be scrutinized, and it's article brought in line with the content policies of Wikipedia. Deizio talk 23:40, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Past tense

The article is written in the past tense (although I note the discussion above). Is it possible to indicate the period in which it was active? LessHeard vanU 22:38, 2 March 2007 (UTC)