Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Democratic opposition to Hillary Clinton in 2016

:{{la|List of Democrats who opposed Hillary Clinton presidential campaign, 2016}} – (View AfDView log{{int:dot-separator}} [https://tools.wmflabs.org/jackbot/snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Democratic_opposition_to_Hillary_Clinton_in_2016 Stats])

:({{Find sources AFD|List of Democrats who opposed Hillary Clinton presidential campaign, 2016}})

Some sort of weird WP:SYNTH. --Tagishsimon (talk) 20:14, 25 November 2016 (UTC) Tagishsimon (talk) 20:14, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Now renamed as a list of something or other, I withdraw my objections. Still not convinced it's required, but suggest this AfD be closed as keep. --Tagishsimon (talk) 01:26, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

• Comment Is there any useful material that could be merged to United_States_presidential_election,_2016, then redirected? Joyous! | Talk 20:59, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:14, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:14, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

• Delete As it stands now, this is not notable on its own. Instaurare (talk) 23:42, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
• Comment I can put it back in my userspace, because it is notable so should be somewhere, but seeing as some exit polls show she may have received about the same percent of Democrats as he did Republicans[http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/11/08/us/politics/election-exit-polls.html][http://edition.cnn.com/election/results/exit-polls] it is notable. I also tried to make this not merely a list, but about the results and the states where it may have mattered. Plus I think the original deletion of the list itself was based on wrong politically based phrasing rather than Wikipedia rules. This topic was notable, moreso than people thought before the election sure, and is discussed in credible sources. Whether it's as notable as the Republican one is irrelevant, from my understanding though maybe this place has changed, to whether it merits an article. See USA Next (not as notable as AARP) or Gun Owners of America (not as notable as the NRA). Deleting the list was largely politically motivated. And even if it had some justification, because of lack of coverage at that time, it no longer is just as there's been plenty of article about Rust Belt Democrats voting for Trump or people voting for Stein. (I'll close by saying I did not vote for Trump and am no longer a registered Republican, in part, due to him.)--T. Anthony (talk) 08:18, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
• Delete - not really much to this article and agree it seems like SYNTH. I suspect the only reason it was created was to balance out the Republicans against Trump in 2016 article. —Мандичка^YO 😜 15:52, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

:*I created it because cross-party voting was, by most exit polls, equal. The subject was verifiable and articles were written about it. So I figured it makes sense to have an article on cross-party voting among Democrats in 2016. I guess that is "balance" in a way, but not having something on this just started to look more imbalanced or biased considering what actually happened. (And just in case I'll say again I did not vote for Trump and I've never been a Democratic.) If I did it poorly I'm fine with fixing it.--T. Anthony (talk) 17:45, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

• Keep - Well referenced and doesn't really look like WP:SYNTH, given the context it looks pretty notable, it's really more of a list than an article, I think it should be renamed to "List of Democrats who opposed Hillary Clinton presidential campaign, 2016" to be consistent with Trump's article. ∼∼∼∼ Eric0928Talk 16:39, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

::It is SYNTH. It used to be called List of Democrats opposing Hillary Clinton presidential campaign, 2016 but was changed and now talks randomly about here and there where Clinton underperformed with voters, which is not really what the page was about and is not "Democratic opposition." —Мандичка^YO 😜 17:31, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

:::If you want to switch it back to a list that's fine by me. I thought that would cause re-creation issues. I figured something about how cross-voting effected different states would be more informational though. Maybe I could have done better.--T. Anthony (talk) 17:43, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

• Keep - Delete It is not synth (it would be synth only if there were no sources out there that talk about a Democratic opposition to Clinton) and is much better than having just a list article, since lists are always going to be very self selective, contain little actual content beyond links, and be dependent on links (i.e. Wikipedia articles) existing for its content. I can see scope for additional content, such as what was on the deleted Bernie or Bust ‎article. I'd support a similar renaming and content broadening for the List of Republicans who opposed Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 23:03, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

::Vote changed to delete after the article title was changed, resulting in the breadth of the subject covered by the article being severely curtailed. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 16:40, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

• Keep if it's moved back to the original list form with the corresponding title to the Trump one. This has morphed into a separate topic and the synth comes from looking at areas where she performed poorer than expected with Democrats and calling that "opposition," which is not the correct usage, because you have to add in other factors like voter apathy, voter suppression, etc. Opposition would be actual Democratic leadership or groups actively opposing her candidacy, which certainly wasn't seen anywhere near the scale of that it was on Trump. If the list is short, it's OK. —Мандичка^YO 😜 01:54, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

:: I renamed the article to List of Democrats who opposed Hillary Clinton presidential campaign, 2016. --George Ho (talk) 00:24, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

:::As a result, I have changed my vote to delete. I do not think such self-selective lists are useful. If it returns to the old title, which allows the full scope of the article's subject to be explored, I will change back to keep. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 16:35, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

{{clear}}

: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.