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. Randykitty (talk) 17:43, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tendency (party politics) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:DICDEF and, as a disambiguation page, WP:PARTIAL. Geschichte (talk) 04:25, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CptViraj (talk) 06:26, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:40, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Tendencies have an important role for Trotskyites in particular that goes beyond dictionary definitions. If there are ways to improve the article so that it stops meeting WP:DICDEF then let me know. JASpencer (talk) 06:58, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Well, the entry now consists of exactly one sentence and no sources. Multiple paragraphs with multiple sources, that's no longer a dictionary definition. Geschichte (talk) 19:31, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Not a disambiguation page per WP:PTM. Currently not suitable as an article if it's only WP:OR. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:37, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and expand in the spirit of WP:DABCONGOV. There are two interwiki links, and fr:Droit de tendance looks promosing. – sgeureka ^t•c 11:25, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 13:46, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and expand Tendencies serve as formalized factions influencing party dynamics, distinguishing it from a mere dictionary definition WP:DICDEF. A bit of TLC can bring it up to speed. --Snowycats (talk) 20:44, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  The entry is a pure DICDEF. Geschichte (talk) 22:02, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I don't understand the point of the nomination. We have dabs of dabs. We have definitions on dab pages. I'm lost. Bearian (talk) 03:01, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Is it not a partial title match? Geschichte (talk) 22:33, 6 January 2025 (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.