Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Development of political parties in the United States


 * 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 delete. - brenneman  03:31, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Development of political parties in the United States

 * — (View AfD)

Written as an essay. Note, written by the same author as another article that is up for AFD above. Jeff3000 20:25, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as an unneeded essay; see WP:NOT and WP:OR for policy here. Any information here is contained in encyclopedic form in various United States history articles. Crystallina 22:08, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment/Question Delete Is there any sign that the information in this article could be cited and footnoted? Yes, it reads like an original paper on the subject, but the TOPIC of the history and development of political parties in the US is certainly an encyclopaedic one.  I find it impossible to believe there haven't been dozens of scholarly works on the subject, so a wikipedia article summarizing those works would be a valuable addition to political and historical projects.  That said...this article in its current uncited form does not appear to be that article, but I'm wondering if it could be made into that article. -Markeer 04:27, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete essay (and a bad one at that) - to respond to Markeer, First Party System covers the history much better. GabrielF 04:52, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * And then follows up to Second Party System I see. Thank you GabrielF.  I've updated my vote above to delete. -Markeer 16:56, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

This is original and describes things very well. There is no need to delete these valuable works such as these. Very educational and I really took my time while writing this. Please do not delete this, let us all work together to make this more wikipediaish, or w/e you guys say. after reading countless wikipedia articles, i think this has a higher quality than others!--Mrahman1991 00:45, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - While it might be educational, it does not fit into Wikipedia policies. Please read no original research. -- Jeff3000 00:50, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Mrahman1991: It's obvious you can write, and you're certainly willing and interested in developing a full article on a subject. These are wonderful traits in a wikipedia editor and I hope you continue working here.  However Jeff3000 is correct that the problem here is no original research.  You've presented an original thought without citation or reference, which is acceptable in many fora, but not here.  Wikipedia is a tertiary source that reports on information that has already been published in peer reviewed verifiable sources.  However, since it would indeed be unfortunate if your pages were deleted outright, I would suggest you copy both of your current articles to your sandbox and work on them there.  If you can reference your assertions from acceptable sources, I see no reason why some of your information can't be merged into other articles on the subjects at a future date (note: this suggestion is if the two articles are in fact set for deletion at the end of these discussions, which currently seems to be likely) -Markeer 19:30, 9 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete. Worthwhile topic, already well covered in many other articles.  OR essay.  Dragomiloff 00:58, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Make disambig to First Party System and Second Party System--Ioannes Pragensis 16:33, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 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.