Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of big tent political parties


 * 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. Tone 13:33, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

List of big tent political parties

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Unsourced OR. Mccapra (talk) 23:27, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 23:27, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 23:27, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:45, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete cannot see any way this could be rescued, will inevitably produce OR. The term itself is notoriously slippery and there are few parties which genuinely fit the description (as opposed to aspiring to be). Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 23:52, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep. What do you mean by "original research"? When adding parties to that list, I am basing their inclusion on the fact that the parties' articles state that they are "big tent" parties. The criteria isn't what I consider to be big-tent and any "original research" I put in - the criteria is what other articles on Wikipedia already say. There are often sources on the parties' articles that support their definition as "big tent" - if not, then that's a problem with the party's article, not the list, and I am okay with adding sources as I go and removing unsourced entries if you feel that's the issue. Otherwise, feel free to request deletion of the following lists for the sake of consistency: List of left-wing political parties, List of right-wing political parties, and List of centrist political parties. -AndreyKva (talk) 01:15, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep. Agreed with preceding statement. Most of the other articles similar to this one (ie. list of left wing/right wing political parties) are formatted almost identically, whereby the sources are found within the respective political parties article. I see no valid reason why this article should be deleted, while those are kept. Archives908 (talk) 01:29, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep The articles linked to show in the infoboxes their "Political position".  D r e a m Focus  01:57, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Inclusion criteria needs to be based on independent sources, not other Wikipedia articles. MrsSnoozyTurtle 00:05, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   12:47, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment The fact that a Wikipedia editor decided it would be helpful to readers to summarise the political positions of a party by describing it as “big tent” does not form a proper basis for a list article. In most cases the characterisation in the info is is unsourced, so just copying it all into a list doesn’t make sense. Of the two parties listed that have online sources, “There Is Such A People” (Bulgaria) is at least described as “big-tent” in the source, though I don’t think that alone is a valid basis for listing it (unless the title is changed to “List of parties that were once described as “big tent””). The source for “National Liberation Front” (Algeria) doesn’t use the term “big tent” at all. That was an inference drawn by a Wikipedia editor. Overall, my rationale is that while it might be possible to find a source here or there where a party happens to be described as “big tent”, that in itself is not a proper basis for a Wikipedia article. Most entries here don’t even have that. Mccapra (talk) 06:02, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete Big tent is a notable topic, but it's too subjective for a standalone list article, e.g. Ice cream vs List of best ice cream flavours (which are rum and raisin, boysenberry and vanilla bean, obviously!). Any properly sourced examples can easily be incorporated into the parent article. MrsSnoozyTurtle 06:21, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment To elaborate 's points in reference to the keep !votes: First, Wikipedia cannot be a source for articles. Second, please see WP:ALLORNOTHING and WP:WHATABOUT. Third, big tent parties generally exist in pluralistic polities, hegemonically occupying a middle ground with demonstrated capacity to successfully fend off challenges from *both* left and right (broadly defined). There are not actually many examples of this; Canada's Liberals or Japan's LDP are notable for their exceptional nature. Describing parties rooted in authoritarianism (such as the Cambodian People's Party) or national liberation (Algeria's NLF), fringe parties or minority parties as big tent is simply incorrect... (the inclusion of Angola's UNITA, a proxy for cold war rivalry, genuinely has me shaking my head). Those seeking to keep this article need to refute the appearance of original search by citing a body of work from political scientists/sociologists showing a consensus for parties to be termed "big tent" parties (it's important the sourcing is of academic quality and not news media simply repeating claims of a party that, surprise, surprise, they are a big tent and seek to represent everyone) ... my concern is this does not exist, hence my !vote to delete....but happy to be convinced otherwise.  Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 11:17, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
 * If the reliable sources are in the main article, then you don't need to copy them to the list article. We are not using Wikipedia is a source.   D r e a m Focus  00:07, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
 * They aren’t. Mccapra (talk) 07:50, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Please see WP:SOURCELIST; this is precisely why Wikipedia is not reliable. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 04:29, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment - The criterion for inclusion for lists can be a little less than crystal clear, unlike for categories, since we are about to group borderline cases together in a section, clarify with additional notes if the evidence for inclusion is not univocal, etc. While we do need a criterion for inclusion, that criterion does not need to be perfectly categorical. &mdash; Charles Stewart (talk) 15:15, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep per Archives908. Heartmusic678 (talk) 12:14, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Delete: As mentioned "big tent" is a subjective judgment. Even if we were sourcing entries, whether a party is currently positioning itself as a "big-tent" party varies all the time, often by candidate. It's not really something that's inherent enough to a political party. Gnomingstuff (talk) 23:08, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete: Per above and too much WP:OR, we shouldn’t define an Wikipedia article on other Wikipedia articles, plus even more when it is unsourced. BastianMAT (talk) 09:53, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete much too subjective -- no real criteria about what to. include. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs) 16 January 2022 17:47 (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.