Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Capitalist republic
From 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The result was Withdrawn, non admin closure. - G1ggy Talk/Contribs 03:05, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Capitalist republic (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
I'm fairly certain there is no government that identifies as a 'capitalist republic'; there are, however, socialist republics, which incorporate socialism into their constitutions—yet capitalism, especially of the laissez-faire variety—naturally forms with a free market economy. The only states that would use this word would be the aforementioned socialist republics when decrying capitalism. Blast [improve me] 04.06.07 2203 (UTC)
- Withdrawn, per Uncle G's rewrite. Could someone clerk this appropriately? Blast [improve me] 17.06.07 0148 (UTC)
Delete. This is not a widely used term. —Sesel 22:39, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]- Move to bourgeois republic, per Sohelpme. This is a commonly used expression in Marxist circles. —Sesel 23:52, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The only examples I can find of the term's usage (which are relatively few) are basically political whining. I would go with delete per WP:NEO.-Cquan (after the beep...BEEP.) 22:42, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]- Move to bourgeois republic. That term and context is more believable. Cquan (after the beep...) 00:26, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Kommentar. The given alternate term bourgeois republic seems to get many times more hits, many of which seem to be relatively scholarly and historical-i.e. not just forum whining, etc., primarily related to Spain, France, and Russian/USSR history. Perhaps it should just be moved? Just because a phrase may not be in current common use doesn't mean it doesn't have historical relevance. Sohelpme 23:37, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- In principle, sure,
but there's nothing here worth moving.DGG 02:44, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]- Then we'll improve it when it's moved to fit the new context, if that happens. —Sesel 04:31, 5 June 2007 (UTC)-- and I see from the revised version that it was improved impressively--therefore : Keep'DGG' 23:46, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- In principle, sure,
- Keep - just because countries don't self-identify as such, doesn't mean they don't exist. -- Beardo 04:46, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, mainly WP:OR. Bourgeois republic may deserve an article, but this particular one should not be it. --Dhartung | Talk 08:29, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The article is no more than a definition, and the term seems merely to be a converse for socialist republic, but since the collapse of the communist block in 1989 and the marketisation of China in the past decade, such socialist republics hardly exist. An article of this length should normally be tagged as a stub, but there seems no prospect of any useful expansion of this article, beyond the present definition. I would thus suggest Transwikify to dictionary. Peterkingiron 21:56, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sr13 09:03, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 09:40, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Transwiki — As above, its just a definition. JodyB talk 15:47, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not (now) original research. The sources use this very name for the concept. And clearly the article can be expanded beyond one paragraph. Neither renaming nor deletion are required. Keep. Uncle G 18:48, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per the rewrite by Uncle G. It is an article about a concept, not a term, and a notable one at that. Thus, it is not limited to being nothing more than a dicdef. -- Black Falcon (Talk) 01:03, 17 June 2007 (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.