Talk:United Party for National Development

Proposed merge of National Management Committee of the United Party for National Development into United Party for National Development

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of this discussion was merge . GeographicAccountant (talk) 00:23, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

---

Current article is a stub and hasn't been expanded in the month since it was created. Unless it's going to expand significantly soon, there's no reason for it to be separate, and if it expands later then it can be split off again at that time. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 08:59, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Agree - I agree with the merge, as I see no reason for it to be a separate article. Same with the National Executive Committee of the United Party for National Development article. GeographicAccountant (talk) 12:58, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

I see @JoesamuelP keeps removing the template which states that there is an open (not closed) discussion here... GeographicAccountant (talk) 22:57, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

What more information does it need? Let's just add on to what already exists.

Do your research! JoesamuelP (talk) 09:49, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

@JoesamuelP; the fact remains that you are not supposed to remove that template when a discussion has been opened. You will HAVE TO WAIT until somebody closes this discussion! You can edit the rest of the page but leave that template alone.

I'm sure there is nothing difficult to understand here. This is how Wikipedia is. GeographicAccountant (talk) 10:03, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

@JoesamuelP merging this into the other article won't prevent you or any other editor from adding to it. It just combines this very small article with a related one which has more reliable sources and isn't a stub. If you want to add onto it, either do so now and show that there is enough here to justify a separate article, or wait until the merge and add it to the target article. If it gets big enough/has enough reliable coverage to justify independent notability, then you can suggest splitting it off again later. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 12:52, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

@QuietHere, I see it has been over a month since the last comment. That article still has only the introduction cited (and from those 5 citations, the last one, presidenthh.com, is clearly a "blog" that may belong to or is meant to represent Zambia's current president). So, I still have the strong opinion that that information does not deserve to be in its own article.

The Draft:National Executive Committee of the United Party for National Development article seems to be talking about the same political party in Zambia. That article had the same issues and is currently in draftspace simply because this editor (User:JoesamuelP) did not want it deleted (he moved it to draftspace himself as soon as he saw that a PROD tag was added at the top of the article). I saw an article yesterday which was entitled General Assembly of the United Party for National Development (also created by this editor; it had no sources) but it has since been speedily deleted due to looking like it is advertisement or promotion of the said party.

So, I am a bit worried about what this editor wants to do on Wikipedia. I allege that he may be here only to make sure that different articles exist talking about "the UPND and its processes" without editing any other environments. I mean, that's the impression I have if we include the UPND Alliance article on top of the draft article and speedily-deleted article that I mentioned in the previous paragraph. He has also made several edits to the UPND Youth League article, this article (UPND) and the Cabinet of Zambia article.

Anyway, for this particular discussion of whether the National Management Committee of the United Party for National Development article should exist or not, I think we can safely conclude that it should be merged into this article. Let's see if there is anything from all the uncited paragraphs that we want to move into this article as part of the merge.

GeographicAccountant (talk) 12:38, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

@GeographicAccountant it certainly seems to be that, yeah. A notification was left on JoesamuelP's talk page to that effect, and I also left a warning regarding disruptive editing. I still think a merger is valuable, however, and I see that you agree. It's funny that you called my attention back to this as I had completely forgotten about it. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 13:18, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.