Login
Login

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Political system

: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 keep. -- Cirt (talk) 15:33, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

=[[Political system]]=

:{{la|Political system}} – (View AfDView log)

:({{Find sources|Political system}})

Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Article is just a random collection of links and unsourced statements, and the topics it links to are already covered in Forms of government, government, and/or state (polity). -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 00:11, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

::I'm not saying that AfD is WP:PM. I'm saying that the content should be moved into those three articles, and then this page should be deleted. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 06:42, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

:::Actually, scratch that. Since this article is almost completely unsourced, and poorly written (it's mostly just a random collection of links), this page should simply be deleted. There is nothing worth keeping from it. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 06:45, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- Acather96 (talk) 09:53, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
  • strong keep Although much below the lede is list-class the article has merit and just should be improved. I would be extremely surprised if political system were not an encyclopedic topic, and the start is there.... L.tak (talk) 21:39, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

:Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:03, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

  • Keep, though the article needs improvements, as previous noted. — fcsuper (How's That?, That's How!) ([http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Exclusionism Exclusionistic] [http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Immediatism Immediatist] ) — 05:42, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Keep There is a confusion between this and Forms of Government, and a lot of overlap partly as a consequence. Forms are to do with structure, the political system wider; but that is inadequate as a distinction and ignores the interdependence. Whilst I don't rule out amalgamation it means a rewrite and I would probably want to keep Political System as the heading with a redirect from Forms of Government. It's a difficult article to write anyway, which has been the problem. We need somebody with a proper understanding of the width of the topic, and where the boundaries lie with related articles. It's one thing to know a list of categories, but unless the writer understands how they function, at least as archetypes, I doubt that it will be possible to do the subject justice. Citation needs to be well of chosen sources/further reading. AJHingston (talk) 17:20, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

: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.