Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of United States Progressive Party presidential tickets


 * 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. j⚛e deckertalk 00:29, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

List of United States Progressive Party presidential tickets

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

WP:SYNTH and WP:OR, there were 3 parties named the Progressive Party in the United States (see Progressive Party (United States, 1912), Progressive Party (United States, 1924), and Progressive Party (United States, 1948), this article synthesizes the three trying to show some continuity among these parties and their electoral performances. Not encyclopedic as all these elections are covered in sourced detail in already created articles. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:56, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:39, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:39, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:39, 17 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom; these were three separate parties despite the shared name. postdlf (talk) 15:48, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Don't delete, The 1912 and 1924 parties weren't entirely separate, as the the reminents of the former were still there and were a major part of the latter. As to 1948, the California and Wisconsin parties, which were part of the 1924 campaign were parts of that campaign as well, so there was SOME continuity. Of the races it ran in three of the five got over a million votes and it was the most successful third party in history. Not only that, it elected members of congress throughout most of the first half of the 20th centuryEricl (talk) 12:43, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh, the 1912 and 1924 movements were completely separate. See TR's view of the Socialist Party and note the fact that the Socialist Party was one of the main driving factors behind the 1924 LaFollette campaign (they didn't run a candidate that year but instead threw full organizational and financial support to his campaign, the final chapter of the Conference for Progressive Political Action episode.) The only overlap would have been a few aging Bull moosers who might have voted for the third party as individuals. Carrite (talk) 16:46, 7 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  D u s t i *Let's talk!* 00:53, 23 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep. Far from being unnecessary reiteration, this is a useful historical tool — a well-researched and detailed list which depicts, at a glance, all of the pertinent details regarding the three respective American presidential runs, while also providing instant comparison between the candidates from the three same-named parties and the instant-overview specifics for each of the elections. Such comparative details are not readily available from each of the individual articles on the three elections and, without this entry, would require moving back-and-forth between the articles and taking notes. &mdash;Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 05:43, 23 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep-This is a historical thing that should be kept on here for sure. Wgolf (talk) 23:07, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 12:21, 1 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep has historical use. as long as the different progressive parties (small p not big P) are clearly shown, it seems okay to intermingle candidates from the various progressive parties. Cramyourspam (talk) 14:53, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Can you or anyone else !voting keep show reliable sources that "intermingle" the candidates in this way? postdlf (talk) 17:22, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
 * @ - It doesn't really matter if no other source has combined these campaigns in a single list in this way, so long as no novel claim is being made. If the article intimated that this was all one political movement, with some sort of ideological or organizational continuity, that would be a novel historical argument and thus prohibited "Original Research." This is just a unique mashup of indisputable historical facts, making no claims other than being a LIST of PROGRESSIVE PARTY PRESIDENTIAL TICKETS. Carrite (talk) 16:37, 7 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep per previous arguments in support of the article, particularly those of Roman Spinner. Article is well-resarched, verifiable and has historical value.--Ddcm8991 (talk) 15:45, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
 * This keeps getting said, yet no one has shown this in this discussion; there are no references in this list to establish that there is a continuity between these organizations; and it's telling that Progressive Party (United States) is merely a redirect to the disambiguation page section Progressive Party. postdlf (talk) 15:47, 6 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep - This is three distinct political movements: TR's trustbuster Republicans (center-right ideologically), Robert LaFollette's more or less independent run for Presidency (there was no real party behind it, it was essentially a ballot name, backed by the trade unions and the Socialist Party; center-left ideologically); and the anti-Cold War liberal Democratic organization associated with former Sec. of Agriculture Henry Wallace and backed by the Communist Party (center-left ideologically). The fact that this is an unabashed LIST of these otherwise pretty much unrelated things using the same name makes it okay, in my view. I don't see this as a fork either. Carrite (talk) 16:29, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Combining them in a list like this implies a continuity that isn't there, and the list would require some pretty heavy disclaimers to resist that tendency, more effort than whatever this is worth (which isn't anything that I can see). If you acknowledge that they merely shared names, it's like you're endorsing a "list of people from any place named Peoria". postdlf (talk) 18:28, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
 * It wouldn't be hard to write a heavy disclaimer. In fact there needs to be a heavy disclaimer. This, of course, is a simple editing matter, not really an aspect of a notability challenge. Carrite (talk) 06:32, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
 * This page is actually greatly similar to a page I launched, List of Canadian socialist parties (limited to the very early years so far) ... Those organizations are apples and oranges and pears to some extent, although with greater continuity than the three "Progressive Party" organizations here. Still, not to use an OTHERSTUFF argument, such pages of unlike things are more or less a device to help a newcomer decode one organization from another — a disambiguation page on steroids, if you will. Carrite (talk) 06:43, 8 October 2014 (UTC)


 * @ - I have rewritten the lead and added short historical blurbs for each of the organizations. Hopefully this satisfies your objection. Carrite (talk) 14:46, 8 October 2014 (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.