Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of populist 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. Black Kite 10:18, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

List of populist parties

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Miacek and his crime-fighting dog ( woof! ) 17:59, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

This 'article' is a complete mish-mash based on someone's personal judgment, with zero sources and no indication that the main contributor(s) would try to meet at least minimal criteria of quality and verifiability. As it stands, the article should best be deleted.

Some 'funny' examples: -- Miacek and his crime-fighting dog ( woof! ) 18:02, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Forza Italia (right-wing and berlusconist party of Italy)
 * Civic Democratic Party (oligarchic Czech right-wing nationalist-eurosceptic libertarian populism)
 * Socialist-Revolutionary Party (socialist, non-marxist, anarcho-socialist, agrarian populism)
 * Russia's Choice (oligarchic yeltsinist pan-slavist russian nationalist populism)
 * Democratic Choice of Russia
 * Liberal Democratic Party of Russia (ultranationalistic conservative semi-fascist totalitarian democrat populism)
 * Our Home is Russia (statist yeltsinist russian nationalist populism)
 * United Russia (a putinist version of Our Home is Russia)
 * Democratic Party of Russia (liberal populism, popular democrat)
 * People's Democratic Party/Social Democratic Party (Portugal) (originally reformist, social progressive social democratic popular democrat populism, now social conservative, social liberal humanistic version of christian democratic popular democrat populism)
 * Democratic Social Centre/People's Party (Portugal) (conservative centrist-christian democratic classical liberalist inspired by the European Centre parties, turned into socialy conservative more christian democratic eurosceptic populism with the leadership of Manuel Monteiro, and into ultraconservative, neoconservative and semi-christian democratic, conservative classical liberalist/libertarian conservative populism since the leadership of Paulo Portas)
 * Common Course (Anti-EU communist left-wing nationalist populism)
 * Progress Party (Norway) (libertarian conservative, anti-tax/regulation)


 * Delete per WP:OR. Normally, we may just ask for sources (and hey, I agree with at least some on the list), but this is too controversial to be kept without strict adherence to WP:RS, much as we'd require of WP:BLP. - Lilac Soul (talk • contribs • count) 19:50, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete POV list of parties the author accuses of being populist. Letsdrinktea (talk) 21:39, 22 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete - some parties belong to international organizations, such as the Liberal International or have some clear identification with each other, but that is not the case with populism. I notice that there are numerous articles similar to this one which are OR.  The Four Deuces (talk) 22:18, 22 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete - as OR. Rlendog (talk) 22:50, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

P.S.: I started adding sources to the article, so it wouldn't seem to be someones personal oppinion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lususromulus (talk • contribs) 19:34, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Not delete - Well if all of you want to help improve the article...it would be much better to the Encyclopedia then just deleting it. About the parties refered as examples of mistakes or abuses, at most the characterization may not be fully corect, but very close and just in need of sources, the case of the Civic democratic party and Forza Italia!, they weren't added by me, and inded the charaterization made by their adder was so rabid on both I had to make an effort to keep them neutral. And many others weren't added by me (I created the article), I simply edited to look more reasonable on this context. Based on this, there isn't really "someone's oppinion" guiding this, as in the ones I added I was following scholars, books and newspappers leads (like on the examples of the List of social democrats, people or parties just historically refered as being something can be refered on a wikipedia list as being so, if with needed warning) and so many users countributed that this is at most misguided and needing more sources than needing deletion. Waiting for countribution from your part, Lususromulus (talk) 14:25, 25 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Your recent changes to the article show once again what's wrong with this article and your editing style here. Without giving any sources whatsoever, you introduce oxymorons like “People's Power Party (India) (semi-socialist mildly conservative and nationalist democratic populism)”. For another, even more nonsensical classification “Democratic Social Centre/People's Party (Portugal) (conservative centrist-christian democratic classical liberalist inspired by the European Centre parties, turned into socialy conservative more christian democratic eurosceptic populism with the leadership of Manuel Monteiro″ you've indeed added a source, which however says nothing of this 'ideological salad' it is supposed to 'prove'. -- Miacek and his crime-fighting dog ( woof! ) 12:58, 26 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep If we can create a reasonable definition of a populist party then we should not delete this list. NorthernThunder (talk) 19:54, 25 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete I can't really see any value to this article. It admits itself that the term 'populist' is difficult to define, and the cites it has chiefly appear to be merely descriptions of a politician or party as being 'populist', in a way that practically any successful politician or party could be described.  They don't really qualify as defining a party as 'populist'.  Aside for that, the majority of the article is waffly and WP:OR.  The sentence "finding populist parties is a hard work, because we have to distinguish the connotations (both positive and negative) of populism and look for real trademarks of the populist ideology/political philosophy" is practically an up-front admission of original research in action. -- Escape Orbit  (Talk) 22:03, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. With the recent addition of citations by Lususromulus, I think the article can work. There are OR problems with some of the article, WP:SOFIXIT. Bondegezou (talk) 12:33, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * No, “[t]here are OR problems with some of the article” is not a right thing to say. The article is total OR with nonsensical classifications like 'socialist conservative' or 'classical liberal social liberal' introduced everywhere. This word salad has absolutely no encyclopedic value. -- Miacek and his crime-fighting dog ( woof! ) 13:02, 26 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Strong delete. Many of the listed parties are not populist at all and moreover such a list, other than being OR and very controversial, is neither useful nor appropriate for Wikipedia. Delete it, please. --Checco (talk) 14:23, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Then change the characterisations of the parties (added because of the various shades of populists that may exist)to more correct ones. And no one wrote "socialist conservative" (though this isn't impossile, study on Ferdinand Lassale's influence in socialist prussianism,ut I'm getting off the point), but the Janata Party had conservative, socialist and hindu nationalist fractions and that shoulde cleared to explain on its particular Popular Front for democracy form of populism. Oh, and yes, a politician may be populist in any party (like Jennings Bryan in the Democrats and Dubia in the Republicans but some parties are either populist since inception (Reform Party USA) or were turned into populist parties (Portuguese People's Party). And "finding populist parties is a hard work, because we have to distinguish the connotations (both positive and negative) of populism and look for real trademarks of the populist ideology/political philosophy" doesn't mean this list is OR, ut that this is oppen to discussion and any list of populist parties is not as certain as a list of Conservative or Socialist parties, so it is a warning to readers of the article into the still ongoing discussion on what is populism. And the hole List of populist parties section warns about this arguable condition, but the list should stay, at least with the  least arguable exemples and maybe examples of texts who support the claim with other oneswho dispute it. Who thinks a less arguable discussion on what makesa party populist should be added to the Populism article as a subsection? And you are right aout PP, ut if you study the PP throughly you will see that ideological mishmash, ut the cites are more destined to prove claims of populism in each party and some specific nuances then the hole ideologic corpus of the parties (which would make it unecessarily huge). I limited the CDS-PP description to just eurosceptic populism with Monteiro (which is in the citacion 4) and to right-wing populism with Paulo Portas (refered in the respective citations). Lususromulus (talk) 13:25, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Poorly defined enough to be limitless. ("populism not only doesn't have a very defined ideological corpus and history (it is more correctly a type of discourse or a non-ideological political philosophy). Populism generally involves advocating for the 'common man' or 'the people' over wealthy or entrenched interests") at this rate, we can find sources to include 90% of all political parties in democracies that ever existed. Liberal or conservative, they will all tell you they're for the common man. Consider the reverse, how many political parties "involve advocating for wealthy or entrenched interests over the common man or the people"? --GRuban (talk) 08:22, 27 February 2009 (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.