Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sixth Party System

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 No consensus, although from the arguments below it is clear it needs rewriting and/or moving. - Yomangani^talk 23:07, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted through the WP:PROD system and requested undeleted through WP:DRV. There were actually 5-6 "endorse deletion", but since any objection to a PROD results in an immediate undelete, I have restored the article and bringing it here for discussion. No vote. Sjakkalle (Check!) 15:01, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Sjakkalle, is it possible to please restore the article Discussion page as well? The original {{PROD}} notice refers to it. Thanks, Satori Son 15:31, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alright, the talkpage is restored. :-) Sjakkalle (Check!) 05:48, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The DRV is here, though it may close and be archived in the next few minutes. Google results, including books and journal articles, clearly establish this as a real phenomenon. Someone just needs to add citations. Also per the JSTOR results Trialsanderrors cited in the DRV: 13 hits for "fifth party system", six for "sixth" and one for "seventh". Academic topics, even of narrow interest, should be covered if there are sources with which to do so. We don't have any notability guidelines for them and there's no other reason that I can see that they shouldn't be in a compendium of human knowledge.--Kchase T 15:46, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • We have WP:NPOV#Undue weight. ~ trialsanderrors 19:41, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Counting hits isn't research. Research is exemplified by the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Seventh Party System, where people actually read what Aldrich et al. wrote, and discussed whether U.S. political historians actually agree upon the existence of a seventh party system. It's clear that whilst Aldrich uses "if", "guess", "should", and "would" to talk about a seventh party system (John H. Aldrich (1999). "Political Parties in a Critical Era". American Politics Research. 27 (1). SAGE Publications: 9–32. doi:10.1177/1532673X99027001003.), xe is firm about the existence of the sixth party system. Uncle G 16:19, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep In concurrence with Kchase and Uncle G. This system, even more so than the 7th, is widely utilized in political science discourses. Joseph 18:09, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per UncleG. Looks pretty clear to me. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:25, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per the arguments made at DRV (I voted to keep deleted there), which I thought were pretty compelling. Eusebeus 18:35, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete, for undue weight bordering on original research. When V. O. Key published this periodization of American history in 1955, he divided it into five "Party Systems", with the latest beginning with the New Deal. There has been some publication on the idea since, some two dozen articles on the Sixth Party System (scholar.google). Some of these have been explanations of then current events as the end of the Fifth Party System, at dates ranging from 1960 to the present; some of them have been comments on the Fifth Party System still existing after so long. (The other four Systems all lasted about thirty years.) None of these appear to support the idea that he Sixth Party System has already come into existence, and has been replaced by a Seventh, as the article claims. Aldrich's article is a fringe variation on a relatively minor idea. There are hundreds of articles on political realignment in the United States (scholar.google). Septentrionalis 18:45, 7 October 2006 (UTC) Septentrionalis 19:21, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Septentrionalis, would you be comfortable with removing this article from the template (or perhaps retitling it to reflect it's exclusion from Key's book), and boldly noting that it is not one of his original five? To me, this other scholarship makes the SPS not original research, though one might argue that it's poor research.--Kchase T 19:44, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • It should certainly be removed from the template. The present article is worse than poor research; it is asserting one opinion, from one paper, in Wikipedia's voice. Scholar.google.com shows twenty-three articles that use the term with various dates for its beginning; at least two of them mention the SPS to assert that it does not exist. There is no consensus on any other claim on the SPS either; I think all that can be said is presently in Fifth Party System, which see. Wikipedia does not exist to abstract every academic paper in a separate article. Septentrionalis 20:00, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • What if we heavily revised the article to reflect that this is one logical progression from Key's ideas, but that it has been rejected by scholars and is only referred to as a null idea?--Kchase T 10:27, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • That is still in error on two points: Aldrich's is clearly not the only proposal of an SPS, and it has not been rejected as much as ignored. (There also appears to be a British series of numbered Party Systems, which has a handful of papers.) If I see a rewrite, I will react to it (please notify my talkpage); but why is a null idea notable? Why have an article on it? Septentrionalis 14:57, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • After a couple of days, I agree with you in part, that a totally null idea mentioned by a few scholars isn't notable enough. However, Aldrich and Niemi (from the summary, which is all I can see), is making an argument for a sixth party system, although it lacks a party realignment. Unfortunately, I don't have time to rewrite this article, now.--Kchase T 09:39, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • I am not asking that this be salted. Feel free to rewrite when you have enough sources to demonstrate notability. Septentrionalis 19:59, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
              • Certainly. This is trending no consensus, but if it's deleted, I request userfication of the article so I can rewrite.--Kchase T 11:41, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is a very important point. I am dismayed to see people voting Keep simply based on a google scholar count without thinking of the context of the scholarship, which does not change the fact that this is WP:OR. Eusebeus 09:30, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Septentrionalis, Your argument is against the Seventh Party System, not reason to dismiss the Sixth Party System. You provided an emphasis on and when stating that "support the idea that he Sixth Party System has already come into existence, and has been replaced by a Seventh." Qwertyqazqaz 17:36, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If we take out the chronological limits (which are not consensus), we are left with: "at some point between 1960 and 2006, the Fifth party system may have collapsed and given way to a Sixth." That's not an article; that's a tautology. Septentrionalis 19:59, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per reasons given by people at the DRV, and per my reasons at the AfD for the Seventh Party System. This is a barely used term for which nothing even close to a fixed definition exists. A mention of these ideas (6th and 7th) in the last remaining article on the rest of the series (Fifth Party System or lower) will be more than sufficient. These articles give undue weight to the ideas of a very few scholars, and should be treated as a neologism. 05:03, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
  • This was User:Fram. [1] --Kchase T 10:27, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • And the AfD is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Seventh Party System. Septentrionalis 14:57, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It ought to be noted that the entire system is not a (popularly) common method of referring to the American political party systems. So for one component of it to be removed for this reason is simply perposterous. Qwertyqazqaz 17:36, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The question of deleting or renaming the entire system is separate; but at least everyone who uses it at all agrees when the first four transitions were. Septentrionalis 19:59, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename Fifth Party System to New Deal Party System and merge all pertinent facts of Sixth Party System and Seventh Party System into New Deal Party System as the last division that received notable support (102 JSTOR article hits). Re Uncle G, making unsupported claims is also not research. ~ trialsanderrors 22:32, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep Many political terms used in academia will not be widely recognized by a general audience. This is a very poor reason to delete or snuff out discussion of it. Even the next article in this series survived its afd, all the more that the Sixth Party System should survive intact. Homehouse 00:03, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • JSTOR is an academic search engine. ~ trialsanderrors 01:23, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • And scholar.google.com is limited to academic books and papers. Septentrionalis 05:29, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep Per the reasons I provided in the Seventh Party System Afd discussion. It is perposterous to persume, and entirely intellectually dishonest to claim, that the Fifth Party System which began in 1933 exists to this day in 2006! All the previous party systems existed for ~ 30 years. It is now 73 years since the Fifth system. We can argue perhaps about the Seventh Party System, but all the above arguments regarding the Sixth are null when considering the sheer number of years since the Fifth. The original author of this system initiated it during the Fifth Party System. It would be entirely perposterous to persume that it (this system) suddenly ended with its initial authorship. That (that it was created by its author during the Fifth), would be the primary argument why it has not progressed past it. Is it reasonable to persume that when all the historical party systems lasted ~ 30 years, the Fifth is gowing strong at 73 years old? I strongly propose not. The Sixth certainly has begun long ago. Qwertyqazqaz 17:36, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: your opinion is pure WP:OR, and is not an argument as to which guideline or policy would either favor keeping or deleting this article. If a description of American politics in "Systems" was moderately popular 60 years ago, and is very obscure now, then it is reasonable to have an article describing that old theory (the first five systems), and to delete an article describing later additions (sixth and seventh). Seventh is already deleted, and I see no reason in your "strong keep" why the sixth shouldn't go either. This is not about claiming that the fifth is continuing or has stopped or never existed at all, this is just noticing that further systems (sixth, seventh, eigth, ...) are hardly discussed and even then no agreement is reached on them. They are no viable, common scientific theories but the ideas of a very few scientists which do not get any attention and consequently have no place on Wikipedia. Fram 19:19, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Response: Your comments are what reeks of WP:OR, as your only argument is that it has less scholars referring to the Sixth system than the Fifth system. And as I have demonstrated, that is because a) it is newer b) it came into existance after the initial author established the series. No one denies that the Sixth has scholars backing it. And as mentioned by others (above, and in the Seventh Afd) some scholars already have us in the Seventh Party System, let alone the Sixth. And logically you cannot argue with these scholars, given the time frame involved, and the series ~ 30 year per system. Qwertyqazqaz 16:15, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• There is actually no consensus of a "party system" enumeration beyond the third one (see Poole & Rosenthal quote below). The subdivision of the third, Democratic/Republican era into fourth, fifth, etc., systems is speculative and the higher the number, the less support it gets. The idea that the subdivision must follow a thirty year pattern is complete hogwash and unsupported by sources, as are most of the keep votes here. ~ trialsanderrors 07:13, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep notable term in acedemia. That there is no consensus as to its use should be explained in the article but it is too important to delete. Eluchil404 05:05, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Citation, please. Septentrionalis 17:37, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • See the citations above.Joseph 19:11, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The DRV on Seventh Party System has been closed, here Overturn and Delete. Septentrionalis 15:09, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• That close was very much in error, and has been reverted. Xoloz 16:58, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • On what grounds? DRV has always claimed the right to review decisions in either direction, and combining the DRV consensus with the original !vote still makes it about 9-4 delete. If this is based on the quality of the arguments, please explain. Septentrionalis 05:26, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would believe it's on the grounds that it was closed too early. DRV decisions should stay on for more than three days before being closed, considering that not many "endorses" are need to change the course of the discussion. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:19, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Fair enough; Xolox just closed Overturn and delete himself. Septentrionalis 20:02, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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.