Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bailout Capitalism


 * 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 merge to Bailout. ✗ plicit  11:00, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Bailout Capitalism

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

One editor's Original Research WP:OR. One source is an advocacy organization/think tank (Center for Economic and Policy Research), NOT a Reliable Source WP:RS nor Independent Source WP:IS. --- Avatar317 (talk) 21:36, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:43, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Less Unless (talk) 10:59, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Leaning keep. I came here expecting to vote delete and was searching google books expecting to be able to declare this was a made-up term, but it's not and there are multiple books writing about Bailout Capitalism (Link: https://www.google.com/search?tbm=bks&q=%22Bailout+Capitalism%22).  Also, nom, please let the creating editor know via their talk page. I'm going to edit the article to make it a bit more wikipedia normal now. CT55555 (talk) 22:14, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Just as a note, Google Books will show books that don't actually include a phrase, even when the search term is in quotes. Among publications that are in that search, there's a trivial mention in a 1975 edition of The Nation, a self-published book, a book that has "Bailout" and "Capitalism" as adjacent list items but doesn't actually call anything "bailout capitalism", "bailout, capitalism", a trivial mention in a Bristol University Press book, another edition of that self-published book I mentioned earlier, the use of the phrase as a criticism of bailouts in a Princeton University Press book, a book from a military history publisher that likewise appears to be using the term as a way of criticizing bailouts rather than a way to describe an economy, a speech by Ralph Nader, a use of the term to characterize the GM bailout, and another statement that was given in Congress. A handful of books that use a phrase isn't exactly WP:SIGCOV of the concept that the phrase points to (which in this case appears to be several different concepts throughout history), nor a reason to split this off from the Bailout article when the amount of sourced substance that can be written about this is quite lacking. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 22:42, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I do agree, all the books that my search turned up are passing mentions. Currently your redirect/merge is agreeable, although I'd suggest as this is a form of capitalism, the redirect should be to there.  I think there may be scholarly articles on that, but haven't found it yet. CT55555 (talk) 22:51, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I just don't see any strong sources that are treating it as a distinct form of capitalism. The term's use as a criticism of bailouts might make it worthwhile redirecting to a section, but I really don't think that there are RS saying that this is a distinct form of capitalism. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 23:00, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Redirect or Merge to Bailout. I don't really see much substantially about this that indicates that the topic is separate; the description of the economic state that calls for a bailout can be covered well under that article, which already discusses the themes of bailouts as well as theory thereof. But I just don't see a good reason to fork off an article at this point. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 22:29, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Smerge as suggested by . I don't see how "bailout capitalism" is anything distinct from "bailout." Bearian (talk) 19:23, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Redirect or Merge to Bailout. I came here expecting to vote keep, as the contents of the article are sufficiently notable. However given it's relevance to Bailout, I think it is more useful to merge than redirect, a separate section within that article seems most appropriate. Having two articles does seem to duplicate the subject slightly. MaxnaCarter (talk) 01:46, 30 May 2022 (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.