- 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 Minor party. The Bushranger One ping only 01:02, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Fringe party (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Unsourced since December 2009. (Also contains OR.) – S. Rich (talk) 15:17, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:19, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to Political party and pick up a source supporting this dictionary definition on the way. Each individual fringe party should have its own article, if notable of course. A List of fringe parties is possible, but probably not worth the headaches involved in establishing that something is really a fringe party. Topics along the lines of "The Nature of Fringe Parties", "The Role of Fringe Parties", or "The History of Fringe Parties" would be great as scholarly articles or even books, but too much WP:OR for an encyclopedia.Kitfoxxe (talk) 16:40, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment by OP: Thanks. We do have a List of political parties in the United States#Minor political parties, and I recommend that we leave it at that. (Indeed, this is just the US listing.) Also, I quite agree that seeking to produce a list of fringe parties is fraught with NPOV difficulties. The major parties won't be concerned, but the various minor parties may jockey to get rival minor parties out of the "minor list" and into the fringe list. Also, we'd produce an oxymoron. By "definition" a fringe party is not notable, so no party could have an article.
(Indeed, I don't see how a redirect for fringe party could work.) Upon reflection, perhaps a redirect to Minor party is appropriate. If editors agree, I'll do a WP:BLAR. – S. Rich (talk) 16:53, 15 October 2013 (UTC)17:01, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep or redirect. There's really very little here right now. However, this is a topic with a great deal of currency in political science publications. Specific fringe parties and the concept of fringe parties in general have received significant attention in scholarly journals, examining everything from the impact on specific elections, to the process by which parties may transition from fringe to more mainstream status, to the motivations of voters who continue to support fringe parties with no evident electoral chances. This is a topic that could support a well-researched article that need not resort to original research. Unfortunately, what we have here ... isn't that article. Or, really, an article. As to whether the best outcome is to retain what we have at this title in the hopes of encouraging development, or redirect to political party or minor party? I'm neutral. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 17:16, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Minor party which is a polite term for 'fringe party'. This is certainly an entirely notable concept. Fringe party can be defined from the second paragraph of here that has been published in a highly respected political encyclopaedia. The Whispering Wind (talk) 17:17, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- For sake of argument, I'll note that the terms are not considered equivalent in all political systems or by all scholars, but that is probably the preferred redirect target if we don't keep an article here. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 17:20, 15 October 2013 (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.