Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Purple Revolution

Purple Revolution

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

This article is about a politically biased and historically unsupported name for the 2003-2005 regime change in Iraq, which already has non-biased articles such as Iraq War, and Iraqi parliamentary election, December 2005. "Purple Revolution" is not an accurate term, nor more objectively is it a popular term. It is used by a small subset of people to color (no pun intended) the discussion of the related events. Furthermore, the article lacks much content or substantiation. If any mention of the "Purple Revolution" is necessary, it could be merely a small part of the Color Revolution and/or Election ink articles. NobleHam (talk) 14:41, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete my searches turned up almost no references to this, instead almost all discussing Nigel Farage's book of the same name. This suggests that the term is a WP:NEO that never attracted much attention beyond some blogs and internet commenters. I don't think this meets the WP:GNG, unless someone can bring a reliable source that discusses this in depth, but I wasn't able to find one. Perhaps it merits a mention in the Iraq War page but I don't think a merge is necessary since there's a lot of original research on here. FuriouslySerene (talk) 14:38, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 18:23, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 18:23, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 18:23, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Iraqi parliamentary election, January 2005. This is a term that has seen wide use, e.g. in these books:[1],[2],[3] in addition to the one mentioned above that uses the term in its title. I'm not sure if there's enough deep coverage for a standalone article per WP:NEO, but it is worth a mention in that article. The current text is unproblematic and should be easy to merge. --Sammy1339 (talk) 22:12, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:43, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure - there may not be enough to write an article, but the phrase seems to be clearly notable - with references in The Telegraph apparently used in a speech by GW Bush whilst President, referenced in books and so on. JMWt (talk) 08:36, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or redirect to election article. Since the term has been used, we ought to retain the title in WP, but it does not need a full article of its own. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:07, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]