| Revision as of 13:27, 24 October 2006 editGRBerry (talk | contribs)16,708 edits →[]: endorse status quo← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 19:41, 6 September 2022 edit undoHouseBlaster (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Administrators58,047 editsm Fix linter errors (via WP:JWB) |
| (5 intermediate revisions by 3 users not shown) |
| Line 2: |
Line 2: |
|
{| width = "100%" |
|
{| width = "100%" |
|
|- |
|
|- |
|
! width="50%" align="left" | <font color="gray"><</font> ] |
|
! width="50%" align="left" | <span style="color:gray;"><</span> ] |
|
! width="50%" align="right" | ] <font color="gray">></font> |
|
! width="50%" align="right" | ] <span style="color:gray;">></span> |
|
|} |
|
|} |
|
</div> |
|
</div> |
| Line 9: |
Line 9: |
|
</noinclude> |
|
</noinclude> |
|
===18 October 2006=== |
|
===18 October 2006=== |
|
<!-- |
|
|
New entry right below here. Please put the entry in ==== a subsection ==== (For example, ====]====) |
|
|
|
|
|
Please notify the administrator who performed the action that you wish to be reviewed by leaving {{subst:DRVNote|page name}} on their talk page. |
|
|
--> |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
====]==== |
|
|
] |
|
|
|
|
|
This article has had a somewhat tortured history. It was prodded, deleted, and the deletion was brought here. It received six '''Endorse deletion''' !votes before as a contested prod. Because of this, the AfD had no deletion argument at all for a while. The deletion argument is straightforward: |
|
|
|
|
|
:This is an obscure addendum to ]'s ]. It reflects the views of a that the Sixth Party System began in 1964, and ended in 1994. This itself is one of variously dating the beginning of the Sixth Party System between 1960 and the present. Some of them mention the Sixth Party System only to deny it has begun. These in turn are a small fraction of the hundreds of papers on . |
|
|
|
|
|
I do not believe that any of the keep !votes (except KChase, who has a copy; I look forward to his expanded version) even addresses this argument, save by ungrounded assertions that there '''must''' be more scholarly papers out there somewhere. If so, scholar.google.com and ] have not found them. |
|
|
|
|
|
If we take out the dates, we are left with the dicdef: "After the ] comes the ]." (This is itself not uncontroversial: some scholars think the Fifth Party System has been replaced by a system of dealignment.) |
|
|
|
|
|
Insofar as what I have said here has encyclopedic content, it is in ]. So I propose to '''overturn and delete'''. ] 15:51, 18 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
*As the closing admin, my reasoning was that neither the delete arguments nor the keep arguments were fully addressed, and there seemed to be no clear thoughts as to whether it should be redirected. I disregarded the OR claims concerning the fact that the Sixth Party System must have come into existence by now, but I did note Uncle G's point of Aldrich's claim and Septentrionalis' own research revealing that articles had been written concerning at least the concept of a Sixth Party System. The claims made in the article may have been badly skewed toward the existence of a Sixth Party System, but I judged that would be a matter for cleanup or merging (as I stated when closing).]] 16:24, 18 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*While I think this really should have closed as a clear keep due to the obvious references to the system, '''endorse closure''' anyway. I originally said keep due to UncleG's statement, but looking back at it, I'm more compelled by Septentrionalis's delete recommendation, where he notes the amount of citations. The article needs to be written accurately, for sure, but that's not a reason for deletion. --] <small>]</small> 18:19, 18 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Overturn, delete''', userfy on request. Closing admins need to understand that they are guardians of ], ], and ] first, guardians of consensus second. The article is, after 5 days of prodding and 11 days of discussion, still wholly unsourced. The onus to establish keepability per those three policies is on the editors, and in extension keep voters. Instead of positive evidence we mostly got assertions and "looks good to me" waffle during the AfD. As long as this article doesn't establish that it isn't OR and reflects more than a fringe PoV it has no business in the mainspace. ~ ] 18:21, 18 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
**Wouldn't a better solution at this stage be to take the citations available at the AfD and incorporate them? It's one thing if sources don't exist, it's another completely if they just haven't been incorporated. --] <small>]</small> 18:26, 18 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
***The AfD makes only one citation for this idea; that's all there is. That's the problem. I think trying to put in an average of all 23 articles would look like the last paragraph of ], and that's not an article. ] 18:35, 18 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
****Stubs aren't bad things, though. --] <small>]</small> 18:41, 18 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*****Neither are redirects. ~ ] 18:56, 18 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
******But stubs are better than redirects. Or something. --] <small>]</small> 18:57, 18 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*******] ] ~ ] 19:04, 18 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
********Well, I was being somewhat coy with that last response, but I'm not entirely sure how your links qualify with this situaiton. --] <small>]</small> 19:19, 18 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*********This article gives undue weight to Aldrich's single, rarely cited view (one of the five papers that does is also on the list; it cites him for the 1994 critical election, but denies the 1964-8 critical election.) ] 19:35, 18 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
**********So merely having the article gives it undue weight? This is a new one for me. Am I missing something? --] <small>]</small> 19:56, 18 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
***********"If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Misplaced Pages (except perhaps in some ancillary article) regardless of whether it is true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or not." ~ ] 20:18, 18 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
************Right, I don't think that qualifies here. --] <small>]</small> 21:59, 18 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Overturn and Delete''' It's original research. Deleting it should be strightforward. Why is this still a question? ] 19:47, 18 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
* '''Overturn and delete''', due to absence of discussion in the academic press. This is notionally an academic concept, so if it's not covered by several papers in the peer-reviewed journals it's somewhere between original research and a report of one man's protologism. <b>]</b> 21:20, 18 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
* '''Comment:''' seems that very little content could meet ], why not merge and redirect to ]? -] 21:48, 18 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
**I tried that on ], now deleted on much the same grounds, and was immediately reverted. ] 23:00, 18 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*Both this and ] should redirect to ], which they now do. ] 03:51, 19 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
**I wish you hadn't done that in the middle of a discussion. --] <small>]</small> 16:37, 19 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
***I wish we would stop using DRV to paralyze common sense decisions so that we are instead bound into the "consensus" created by this den of idiocy, but hey, nobody gets everything they want. ] 00:03, 20 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Overturn and Delete''' as the relevant content has been merged into Fifth Party System and the previous article gave undue weight to a minority idea. I also . I've this article to my to-do list and will attempt a rewrite soon. In leiu of spamming, I'd ask interested parties to add ] to their watchlist. When I get to it, I'll put the new version on that talk page and folks can comment before it goes back into mainspace.] ] 16:33, 19 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Endorse Closure''' Septentrionalis complains that sources don't exist but my keep recomendation was based upon his own listing of acedemic references. ] 11:42, 23 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Endorse closure/redirection''' If I had closed this right now, we would need another relisting AfD. I think the current status quo of redirection (and slight merging) to ] is the best result, so I'll throw my lot in with endorsement. I urge deleters above to examine the new status quo: redirection is optimal, and I see no real reason to object to it. ] 16:06, 23 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Endorse status quo''' Without regard to how we got there, the current status quo is a reasonable outcome, and I don't believe that more discussion is needed. ] 13:27, 24 October 2006 (UTC) |
|