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, consensus is that the list can be made without original research. However there is agreement that inclusion criteria must be agreed upon and implemented with references. Davewild (talk) 19:04, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of democratic socialist parties and organizations[edit]

List of democratic socialist parties and organizations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Completly OR list. No criteria for inclusion, no references at all. Seemingly random collection of disparate political parties. Soman (talk) 15:56, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy keep, notable, and such OR and poor referencing as may be is not a deletion argument. Any discussion of randomness or disparateness would also be proper on talk page rather than here. Looks like a fine example of an underdeveloped but necessary article. While the inclusion criteria are less well-defined than other groups, nothing in WP:LIST#Listed items suggests that deletion is more proper than discussion. JJB 16:10, 30 June 2008 (UTC) Added "speedy" after seeing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Democratic socialism. JJB 16:26, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment, so what criteria would you like to have for inclusion? I haven't posted this afd just cause the list was in low quality, but because an non-OR inclusion criteria is impossible to construct, since the very term 'democratic socialist' is inherently ambiguos. --Soman (talk) 16:13, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    The usual criteria would be, er, (expanding on what its lead says) "democratic socialist" or something very similar in party name, or called that by a reliable source, or multiple significant members are called that. If it doesn't meet either of those tests, then talk-page consensus. If the term really is inherently ambiguous, then please step up to the plate and disambiguate and then put each party in the correct d.s. subcategory. If not all s.d.'s are d.s.'s, we have List of social democratic parties, and anything on both pages can be unobjectionably deleted here if it doesn't meet the criteria just named. If all d.s.'s are s.d.'s (which can be disproved by one counterexample), then there might have been argument for merge rather than delete. This is a situation solved by simple logic, my friend, AfD is not the place for resolving ambiguity. JJB 16:26, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

• Comment* -- your criterion would not exclude any leftist party and would include every former Communist Party of the former Eastern Bloc. As another editor notes, very few parties advertise themselves as non-democratic. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 21:24, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• • • I think we have to come back to whats the point of the list in the first place. We do have Democratic Socialist Party, which is a listing of parties called 'Democratic Socialist Party'. Having a listing of parties which identify themselves/or are identified by others as 'democratic socialist' is just as meaningful as having a List of liberal democratic parties, List of conservative democratic parties, etc.. With the exception of National Socialists, I believe all socialist parties identify themselves as democrats. --Soman (talk) 16:35, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      Socialist Party lead seems to contradict your suggested rule that all socialist parties are democratic except one. I believe hard-and-fast rules about messy self-designations are not useful. It appears that d.s. and s.d. are frequent memes with relatively clearly bordered meanings, while your proposals l.d. and c.d. are cases of two words appended together without having independent synergistic meanings. But I'm not here to argue. The point is that you have a lot of content there and it's not to be deleted by AfD when it requires a lot of picking through. Tag it for "cleanup", or (better) start the work yourself. If cleaning up were as simple as making keep/delete calls, I'd be doing it on this article too. JJB 17:22, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

      • My point is exactly that 'democratic socialist' is just two words appended together, like 'liberal democrat', i dispute the notion that there is a distinct ideology called 'democratic socialism'. However, at wikipedia there is a quite active work to portray that so would not be case. A core reason for my afds and cfds today is that i'm getting tired of seeing 'democratic socialism and social democracy' in infoboxes of political parties. --Soman (talk) 18:21, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 18:10, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• NOTE: Two closely related categories -- Category:Democratic socialism and Category:Democratic socialists -- have also been proposed for deletion at WP:CFD. Cgingold (talk) 18:13, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete impossible to maintain in a fashion that is not either OR or POV. No objective basis (for instance we have the statement: "Party of Communists of the Republic of Moldova - despite being a 'communist' party, the PCRM has followed a very social democratic political agenda since formed the government of Moldova" --- this may or may not be the case but its clearly OR). Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 21:22, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• keep The possible inclusion of some wrongly included material is no reason whatsoever to delete an article; it is reason to improve the article. If included articles state facts showing they belong in this article, then they belong here--until or if the facts in the included articles are changed. Hmains (talk) 03:14, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Democratic socialism is both a major current of socialism, as well as distinct from social democracy. This list was forked off from Democratic socialism a couple of years ago. It could be folded back in, but has been working better as a separate article. I see no reason specific concerns over OR or POV, such as that cited by Bigdaddy1981, cannot be addressed by improving the article, rather than deleting it. Almost all of the organizations listed have articles of their own (of varying quality), in which additional information and references should be found, added or requested. -David Schaich ^Talk/_Cont 05:09, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep There are sources that can be used for the criteriaDGG (talk) 12:24, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per DGG. However, thought should be put into deciding exactly what those criteria should be. After a real attempt has been made, perhaps users may decide this material should be siphoned off elsewhere. Q·L·1968 ☿ 14:33, 1 July 2008 (UTC) PS: Happy Canada Day, everyone.[reply]
• Delete. Sorry but I can't understand the definition of a "Democratic socialist Party". a list with parties participatng in the Socialist International makes more sense. Soman has right, this is OR and "Democratic socialist party" is a definition covering from socialdemocatic parties, exsocialdemocraic parties to excommunist parties, etc. in an unclear way. -- Magioladitis (talk) 21:47, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment even worse, it includes parties that it then describes as 'neo-liberal' and non-socialist. It makes no sense and I cannot think of any sources that would be of any use in overcoming these problems. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 21:54, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment With respect, there is absolutely no substance to the claim that this list is OR. The problem is the opposite: it is no research. Heaps of users just happened by and tacked on the names of various parties at the bottom of the democratic socialism article. I suspect the same thing has been happening since it forked off to become its own list. Q·L·1968 ☿ 18:44, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment users arbitrarily adding parties that they *consider* to be democratic and socialist *is* OR, it is just low-quality OR. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 22:19, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I suspect the same thing has really been happening since even before it was forked off to become its own article :). However, there are many NPOV and non-OR ways to determine if organizations belong in this list. Do they describe themselves as democratic socialist? More importantly, do third parties describe them as democratic socialist? Information of this sort is already available in many of the articles listed, and references therein. If there are unclear or unreferenced cases, take them to the talk page. Let's improve the article instead of deleting it. -David Schaich ^Talk/_Cont 05:01, 3 July 2008 (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.