Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Swamp 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 redirect to Democratic Party of Arkansas#Early statehood. (non-admin closure) wumbolo ^^^ 20:25, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Swamp Democrats

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

With only one source, I find that this article is nowhere near notable. A merge to a related article was proposed (by me) a few months ago but since there are no comments on it yet, I feel that the best way around it is to propose a redirect to Democratic Party of Arkansas#Early statehood given that the content has already been successfully merged to that article. ––Redditaddict69 ^(talk) ^(contribs) 06:04, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. ––Redditaddict69 ^(talk) ^(contribs) 06:05, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arkansas-related deletion discussions. ––Redditaddict69 ^(talk) ^(contribs) 06:05, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete since it has already been merged to Democratic Party of Arkansas. I found a mention here in an opinion letter from 102 years ago, which I'm posting since I think it's neat: [1]. So definitely a thing, but the fact it's been barely sourced for 13 years and easily included elsewhere makes it a clear procedural delete. (I moved the one source over.) SportingFlyer T·C 06:11, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If content has been merged elsewhere then by far the simplest way to conform to our copyright licence by identifying the authors is to keep this as a redirect rather than delete it. See WP:MAD. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:36, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nom Comment I would have to agree with User:Phil Bridger here. ––Redditaddict69 ^(talk) ^(contribs) 02:28, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Democratic Party of Arkansas#Early statehood. AfD involvement was completely unnecessary to execute the redirect, given that the merge proposal was entirely uncontested and indeed undiscussed (see WP:MERGECLOSE and WP:MERGETEXT). But since we're here, have some support. Bakazaka (talk) 06:44, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Democratic Party of Arkansas#Early statehood. No claim of notability, but AfD is unnecessary would be better to merge. Sheldybett (talk) 09:52, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nom Comment I was unaware of MERGECLOSE @Bakazaka: @Sheldybett: (I'm still somewhat new with merging on WP) so sorry for this waste of time! ––Redditaddict69 ^(talk) ^(contribs) 02:34, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Democratic Party of Arkansas#Early statehood. Same with Hill Democrats (mentioned in the article). Internal schisms and factions within the Arkansas Democrats, especially those that do not have a lot of sourcing, should probably relate back to the parent article. Bkissin (talk) 20:42, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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.