Talk:2016 Democrats Abroad presidential primary

Rocky De La Fuente

Why is Rocky De La Fuente getting such prominence in this article? He hasn't had any real results so far. 2A02:A443:3098:0:C8CF:3AC1:4D37:B0E5 (talk) 00:34, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Bernie Sanders wins New Zealand

There are reports that Sanders won the first nation of the primary...New Zealand. Should this be included or projected. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 04:41, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Neutrality towards candidates section

@Snow cat has reverted my removal of two sections with the rather terse reasoning of "Keep", so I'm going to open a discussion per WP:BRD. I don't much care either way about the provisional results, though they seem rather pointless with the official results also on the page, but I do care about the "Neutrality towards candidates" section, listed under "Problems" on the main article and reproduced below, which seems to me a combination of WP:SYNTH and WP:UNDUE:

During the March 7 voting session in Singapore, Democrats Abroad hosted a Super Tuesday presentation by Steven Okun, the present Director of Public Affairs for Kohlberg Kravis Roberts Asia Pacific. During the period of 1994–1999, Steven Okun served in President Bill Clinton's administration, as Deputy General Counsel at the Department of Transportation.

References

I cite WP:UNDUE as it doesn't seem noteworthy to me that someone who once worked for the Clinton administration gave a talk in Singapore (0.8% of the eventual voters), let alone worthy of an entire section. It is, more unambiguously, WP:SYNTH because none of the references give any indication of this being a "problem" or having anything to do with "neutrality towards candidates". In other words, this is stringing together factual statements to create an overall impression supported by none of them, which is precisely what the policy on editorial synthesis covers.

Also paging @Nike4564, Prcc27, PanchoS, Abjiklam, and Knowledgekid87 as uninvolved recent editors on the main primary page. —Nizolan ^(talk) 05:35, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

If the reliable sources don't view it as a "problem", we shouldn't say imply that it is a "problem". Prcc27🍀 (talk) 07:26, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Noteworthy as all local gatherings are, but as Prcc27 said, as long as WP:RS don't note it as a "problem", we shouldn't do either. I moved the slightly shortened paragraph to a "Local gatherings" section. --PanchoS (talk) 12:53, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

• It looks like it's no longer in the Problem section, which would have been a clear case of WP:SYNTH. I'd still lean towards removing the information, unless someone can make a case as to why it is relevant to the topic. Abjiklɐm (tɐlk) 12:55, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

I agree, I don't see any reason why it's notable. The one citation that's actually relevant to the page (the periscope.tv link) appears to be a dead link also. —Nizolan ^(talk) 18:52, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:2016 Iowa Democratic caucuses which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 08:38, 12 June 2020 (UTC)