This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Bulgaria Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Bulgaria, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Bulgaria on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BulgariaWikipedia:WikiProject BulgariaTemplate:WikiProject BulgariaBulgaria Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Politics: Political parties Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by Political parties task force (assessed as Low-importance).

@PLATEL: DPS–Peevski was recognized to be the legitimate DPS by the Supreme Administrative Court of Bulgaria on 11 September. is not in the source. Panam2014 (talk) 15:38, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know why to ping me. I am not the one who added it.  PLATEL  (talk) 16:04, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@PLATEL: but you have edited the article. If it is not in the article, it should be removed. Panam2014 (talk) 16:55, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I didn't even look at it. Why do you continue ping ME, and not who added this?  PLATEL  (talk) 17:10, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And yes, you can delete it yourself. This article does not look like an ultra protected.  PLATEL  (talk) 17:11, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@HapHaxion, Braganza, LordOfApples, and Number 57: The source does not support the statement, nor the previous. The SAC have only cancelled the decision of the CEC to not registering both coalitions, by allowing DPS-A to register. Panam2014 (talk) 19:24, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, the court have not ruled who is legitimate, only who have registrated first. Panam2014 (talk) 19:41, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Panam2014: you have the sources and know what exactly is going on, so why don't you just fix it? Braganza (talk) 12:21, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think this article should merge with the Movement for Rights and Freedoms article as they both cover the same political party. Rager7 (talk) 03:09, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

De jure they do, but, looking at how it is talked about including in the Bulgarian press, DPSNN is usually talked about separately to DPS. Merging them could create confusion with APS (especially as it has changed its parliamentary name to DPS). There is also the minor part in that DPSNN includes 2 other small parties. Quinby (talk) 10:33, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This article seems like its subject might gain more press coverage in the future and perhaps expand significantly, which leads me to Oppose a merger. JuxtaposedJacob (talk) | :) | he/him | 08:11, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]