Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Seventh Party System (2nd nomination)

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 redirect to Sixth Party System. (non-admin closure) SST flyer 12:29, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Seventh Party System

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The page is original research, as the lone source does not actually say that the seventh party system has started, it merely raises the possibility. The source itself is a Daily Kos blog, which does not meet Wikipedia's standards of independent reliable sources. I think it's reasonable have something on the Sixth Party System page stating that 2016 may have been the start of the seventh party system, but this absolutely does not deserve its own page. Orser67 (talk) 04:21, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 08:34, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 08:34, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 08:34, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Remove -- This is ultimately one person's original research published in Daily Kos (whatever that is). The most this deserves is a brief mention in Sixth Party System. It is too soon after the election to start formulating theories as to how it should be interpreted. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:26, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete mere PROMO for a DailyKos op-ed.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:41, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Sixth Party System per WP:TOOSOON and Peterkingiron. Daily Kos is an opinion site that leans liberal, the source cited is an op-ed, so not an RS for what is an academic determination. I think a redirect is better than deletion, as a redlink is just bait to recreate this article over and over again and waste more AfD bandwidth. Montanabw^(talk) 19:38, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Montanabw. It's too soon to make the determination that the Seventh Party System has started, or, if it has, when the transition even was. A quick search of this term brings up a lot of speculation, but nothing solid, especially from political scientists. The speculation (a couple of hits in GBooks: "the possibility that we are about to enter a seventh party system" from an essay by William Field in a 2009 book; "Aldrich has speculated about the existence of a new 'critical era' inaugurating a 'seventh party system' ... in the 1990s." in a 2008 book, citing a 1999 paper by John Aldrich) may be enough for a section about this in Sixth Party System but not for a standalone article, I think. clpo13_(talk) 20:00, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Montanabw. I'm skeptical that this warrants any mention on Wikipedia; seems like the only solid reference is a Trump fear mongering piece and that someone decided it deserved it's own article to legitimize it.

---OCCullens (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 12:01, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per WP:SNOW, WP:TOOSOON, and WP:OR. FWIW, I happen to agree with the thesis, and I also blog at DailyKos under the same moniker (Bearian). Bearian (talk) 15:05, 17 November 2016 (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.