Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Centre-left

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
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 keep. Merging can be discussed on the associated talk pages. Cheers, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 21:47, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Centre-left

Centre-left (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Centre-left/Centre-right are vague terms that have no clear definitions. Essentially they mean a position between the centre and the Left or Right. There are no clear definitions for the terms, and no literature to support the articles. Despite existing for several years, no sources have been found and they are entirely original research. The Four Deuces (talk) 08:23, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related page for same reason:

Centre-right (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
  • Comment: This might be appropriate as a dicdef, but even then I'm not convinced. The subjectivity is problematic, and I'm not sure I'd call a leftist democratic socialist party "centre-left" because it isn't rabidly communist. - BalthCat (talk) 08:44, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There are indeed problems with the current articles, particularly the classification of various parties without sources. However, looking through the various google results linked above, there are loads of sources that use the term, and many that appear to be specifically about the concept. Socio-political terms are generally vague, and vary in interpretation from country to country, but that does not mean that we cannot have an article if sources are available that discuss the terms. Many of the sources are behind pay walls, but decent ones I found include: [1], [2]. I may come back and add more when I have time, but they certainly appear to be there. Quantpole (talk) 08:59, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Both these articles are clear that there are no accepted definitions of these terms and they are using special definitions for their papers. In fact they are defined differently in the two papers. The Four Deuces (talk) 09:14, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To put it bluntly, so what? The article can say that there aren't accepted definitions, and cover the range of uses. There isn't an accepted definition of London, but we still have an article on it. Quantpole (talk) 09:24, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I agree that the articles are problematic, and would prefer the lists of parties to be removed, but these are common terms in public discourse, and many, many wikipedia articles link to them. BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:59, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Left-right politics. These terms are relative and so only make sense when presented in the context of the full spectrum and history of left/right. When split off, as currently, they just invite laundry lists of examples which are tendentious and so will tend to lead to silly disputes about whether a particular example falls in that part of the spectrum. Colonel Warden (talk) 14:39, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep Found this as a result of Talk:Daily Mail where one editor seems insistent that "centre-right" is not a meaningful term as it may refer to a coalition. Collect (talk) 21:33, 13 November 2009 (UTC) redacted as a result of being charged with having a bias against the proposer - as such was not my intent, I redact the !vote Collect (talk) 22:09, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Deleting it would create redlinks in 585 articles. The article has had 123 non-IP editors. The definition is very carefully worded, useful, and stable by now. It would not be hard to find sources discussing the term, but adding all these contradictory and often naive opinions would not add any value. The editors in their collective wisdom have agreed on some original research and come up with a useful dictionary definition. 585+123=COMMON SENSE. Aymatth2 (talk) 03:52, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment the "definitions" included in the articles are bordering on nonsense, since they only apply to a limited subset of countries in the world. While left-right is commonly used, the definition of what is considered left or right varies widely. 76.66.197.2 (talk) 07:28, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the set of policies considered "center" varies from one country to another, but in a given country most people have no problem identifying which parties are to the left or the right of the center. A set of policies that are center-left in one country could be seen as right-wing in another, left-wing in a third. That does not mean the term is meaningless, just that it describes a relative position. Like Northern Australia and Southern Europe. Aymatth2 (talk) 14:07, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But whether the definitions and examples in the article are good or not, whether they are original research, whether the article is just a dictionary definition, are side-issues to me. What do we do with the 585 links? A reader clicking on center-left would not expect to see an article on left-right politics. They would expect an article that discusses what is meant by center-left. Either we work through all 585 articles taking out the links (I am not volunteering), or we leave this article and improve it. Aymatth2 (talk) 14:07, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep vagueness is no reason to delete an article. Can you define what God is? There is no clear definition of that either, still a wikipedia article exists. C mon (talk) 14:29, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note I have added some original research to the article. I will observe how it evolves with considerable interest. Aymatth2 (talk) 15:09, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not keen on that. First, who is going to work through the 585 links? And "centre-left" is a phrase in itself, meaning left of the center, but near the center, whatever the center happens to be in any given country. I have added some refs to the article, but not yet to the examples. If each example had a source showing that party was indeed considered center-left in its country, I think the article would be o.k. Aymatth2 (talk) 18:17, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There are over two hundred political parties listed in the two articles not of which have references. Finding sources for all of them would not be easy. It is circular reasoning anyway. The article about Party X says it is centre-right so the reader clicks on centre-right and it provides a link to Party X. Much better just to include a reference on the article about Party X that it is considered centre-right. The Four Deuces (talk) 18:43, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I started adding a few refs to the list, and now am wondering if the list makes any sense at all. It is hopelessly incomplete, always will be, and the classification is sometimes sort of subjective. The ANC defines itself as "left", but in South Africa it is dominant. Maybe South Africa is a centre-left country, and the ANC is centrist in South Africa. But South Africa is left compared to what? China? India? Brazil? I'm inclined to just scrap the list. There must be other, more complete, lists of parties that define ideological alignment. Aymatth2 (talk) 19:21, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It seems the press often use the terms to distinguish between radical and moderate parties. Conservative parties generally describe themselves as centre or centre-left,[3] rather than right-wing, while social democratic parties are more likely to describe themselves as "left", rather than centre-left. The Four Deuces (talk) 23:29, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at comments above, I don't see any objection to ripping out the list. List of political parties by country is more comprehensive, and Leftish Parties of the World seems a good external link. If there are no objections, I will cut out the list. I will first expand the body, with sources, because there do seem to be two views: centre-left in an global sense and centre-left in a local sense. The article on the Liberal party of Canada says it sits between the centre-left and centre (CCL?), true in a Canadian context, but within the global political spectrum I would see it as well to the right. Aymatth2 (talk) 00:51, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and Keep. Keep the overhauled version of Centre-Left, and redirect Centre-Right to this article. Generalize to show that both terms refer to positions close to the centre. Aymatth2 (talk) 16:41, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep both. Both articles are widely used labels notable enough for their own article; and, even if the current articles are lackluster, they can be improved. --darolew (talk) 21:06, 19 November 2009 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Centre-left&oldid=1068886533"