Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of political parties by ideology


 * 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. Spartaz Humbug! 05:52, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

List of political parties by ideology

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Original research. There is no source provided for the groupings in the article, and no reason given for the selection of parties provided. The groupings appear to be non-standard: Fine Gael is "moderate liberal", the Liberal Democrats (UK) are "classical liberals", and numerous other examples. The list of political internationals and European trans-national parties already appear in other articles. TFD (talk) 22:22, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete There are no sources for this listing, and there have been relatively few edits to the article since it was created. It contains only a sampling of political parties, and can never hope to be complete. Ideology is too complex to diagram in a simple arrangement like this, yet a properly detailed listing would require original research. That's why it's unfixable.    Will Beback    talk    22:42, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Just because something has stayed up for a long time doesn't mean that it's good. This one was created in 2004 and it's apparently never had a single source in all those years, going instead with the "I thought everybody knew that" approach.  This page is a textbook example of original research, with some armchair analysts classifying hundreds of European political parties as leftist, rightist, or centrist, then breaking it down further into things like "social democratic agrarianism", "liberal conservatism", old left and new left democratic socialism, etc., and nothing more to support it than the editors' collective expertise.  One could guess from the name where a socialist party might stand, and guess wrong-- in Germany, the Christian Socialist Party, the Socialist Unity Party and the National Socialist Party represented several different lines of thinking.  As others have noted, even listing the world's political parties would be difficult, let alone classifying them.  If someone wants to take on this task, do it on a user page.  Mandsford 02:19, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - Mildly useful list. "Original Research" prohibition was meant to stop crackpot theories from being pushed... There are innumerable unsourced lists on WP and I don't think that's a legitimate grounds for ditching this... Carrite (talk) 02:21, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Still, there must have been a source that used labels such as "social democratic agrarian", "liberal conservative", etc., in which case the OR problem could be fixed just by telling us where to find more. If there wasn't such a source, then isn't this just someone's theory, crackpot or not, about how to classify the political spectrum in Europe?  I'm all in favor of keeping something where there's a good faith attempt to improve the page.... Mandsford 01:12, 8 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete - clearly a violation of WP:OR. A collection of a group of well-meaning editors' views on which political parties align with which particular view of a set of ideologies does not make the information verifiable. It is totally devoid of reliable secondary sources. N2e (talk) 09:30, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:10, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:10, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per N2e, as Original Research. First Light (talk) 02:59, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. The type of ideology for each party is usually self-declared or can be found in multiple sources (as describe in wikipedia pages for individual parties). Poor sourcing of the umbrella list at the moment is not a reason for deletion.Biophys (talk) 18:47, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
 * At the moment? I don't think that a source has ever been added to it in it's entire five and a half years of existence.  It's as if the very idea of asking, "where does it say that?" is offensive to the article's contributors. Mandsford 00:50, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 * So fix it. Biophys (talk) 01:39, 9 August 2010 (UTC)


 * What, fix 150 separate entries? No thanks, I don't want it kept, and I'm not doing somebody else's homework for them, and nobody else in this discussion is interested in doing that either.  The cavalry isn't going to come to this one's rescue.  Goodbye, list of political parties by speculated ideology.  Mandsford 12:41, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete hopeless POV and WP:OR essay, at least since the page was expanded this summer. No sources whatsoever, arbitrary divisions of social democratic parties (based on 'New Left' concept interpreted in a WP:SYNTH fashion). Simply not usable. Fixing that page would mean wholesale erasures that some users would keep reverting etc. Sometimes it's really better to start from the beginning, if we really need that topic. Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (t) 10:55, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Usefulness is a relevant reason for a list, and this is an extremely useful summary, helpful for navigation. If the placement of any particular party is question, it can  be discussed and documentation added. There is no deadline for improvement.    DGG ( talk ) 04:14, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I think that one thing that everyone here agrees upon is that nobody is interested in improving it.   Mandsford 12:59, 12 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete This is original research and it's arguable that it's simply impossible to construct a meaningful list of this nature. Bondegezou (talk) 16:47, 12 August 2010 (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.