Talk:Catch-all party

Article listed on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion Apr 15 to Apr 20 2004, consensus was to keep. Discussion:

Far too vague and indefinite to ever amount to anything, not unless the name means anything to someone out there. ping 10:26, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Cribcage 16:15, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Poorly written as this stub is, it has been a requested article for quite a while now. There has been a link asking for it on United States Democratic Party at least as far back as November 2003. I've never heard of this phrase before and can not guess what else would go into the article, but the link has survived a fairly robust edit process on that page. Move to Clean-up with a specific request for the verification. If there is no verification, make sure we also delete the links. Rossami 16:44, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Keep. I've done some work on it. In Canada a similar term is "big tent" party, and if the two are the same thing it is a legitimate topic. - SimonP 23:10, Apr 15, 2004 (UTC)
Keep, but seems a little POV. Postdlf 23:54 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Keep, seems reasonable enough to me. --Stormie 04:04, Apr 16, 2004 (UTC)
Keep, is a term in political science. -- till we *) 20:17, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Keep, I remember this being a legitimate term when I took a course on campaigns and elections. Giddytrace 02:08, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Keep. Legit political term. Pteron 07:12, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Keep. BL 08:16, Apr 19, 2004 (UTC)
Keep, term is in common use in Australia and New Zealand. -- Aaron Hill 05:27, Apr 20, 2004 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Big tent which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 20:30, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]