Deletion of List of populist parties

Comment: I can't really see any value to this article. It admits itself that the term 'populist' is difficult to define, and the cites it has chiefly appear to be merely descriptions of a politician or party as being 'populist', in a way that practically any successful politician or party could be described.  They don't really qualify as ''defining'' a party as 'populist'.  Aside for that, the majority of the article is waffly and .  The sentence "''finding populist parties is a hard work, because we have to distinguish the connotations (both positive and negative) of populism and look for real trademarks of the populist ideology/political philosophy''" is practically an up-front admission of original research in action
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR)

Comment: per . Normally, we may just ask for sources (and hey, I agree with at least some on the list), but this is too controversial to be kept without strict adherence to , much as we'd require of 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR||WP:RS||WP:BLP)

Comment: With the recent addition of citations by Lususromulus, I think the article can work. There are OR problems with some of the article, 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Be bold (WP:SOFIXIT)