Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Benevolent dictator


 * 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 per WP:HEY. Bearian (talk) 15:05, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Benevolent dictator

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Does not meet WP:N nor WP:V. Article appears to be WP:OR and WP:NPOV and this seems to already be adequately covered in Dictator. Collectonian 22:03, 30 November 2007 (UTC) --Closeapple 10:14, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
 * A worthy topic for Wikipedia, but unreferenced; probably the best course of action is to redirect to Dictator (little content to merge). - Mike Rosoft 22:09, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge or redirect Will (talk) 22:58, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge to Philosopher king. Both concepts have the same origin and are similar in many ways, and "Philosopher king" is more notable. --Blanchardb- Me  MyEarsMyMouth-timed 15:36, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge but where? Blanchardb's Philosopher king idea would fit, but would require a good deal of effort. Dictator or even Enlightened absolutism might be easier. Tim Ross ·talk  18:15, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Content is unsourced and posibly personal opinion, so a merge would be inappropriate. No opinion on a redirect afterwards. Someguy1221 01:43, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Rearrange with splits and moves. The software term Benevolent Dictator for Life is up for deletion also: see Articles for deletion/Benevolent Dictator for Life (2nd nomination).  Ideas in my order of preference (same as I posted on the other AfD, but from this article's perspective):
 * Idea 1: Merge the state government (non-software) parts of Benevolent dictator &mdash; at least those that aren't WP:OR or non-WP:NPOV &mdash; into Enlightened absolutism or a section of Dictator. Then move/merge Benevolent Dictator for Life and remaining software part of Benevolent dictator into a new Benevolent dictator (software development) and make Benevolent dictator an disambig for the software and state meanings.
 * Idea 2: Same as above, but with software stuff merging into Lead programmer, if appropriate, instead of having its own article. Make Benevolent dictator a disambig to explain the Lead programmer and Enlightened absolutism/state Dictator meanings.
 * Idea 3: Keep Benevolent dictator and merge Benevolent Dictator for Life into it.
 * Strong Keep With minimal effort I just added three references for the use of this term. This article should be kept for no other reason the last section on the model of software development. However this term is widely used in america and quite notable as it is used even in major news sources. So it's plenty notable see the New York Times. The tone looks fine to me, also, not full of jokes or anything. And as for deleting unsourced article, I hope we editors can try and find some sources before saying it is unverifiable, it's just as easy to fix/edit/source an article as it is to nominate it for deletion which should be the last alternative. If it is somehow decided to merge, then it should be to Enlightened absolutism, which also obviously needs work.Earthdirt (talk) 02:39, 5 December 2007 (UTC)


 * The popular use of "benevolent dictator" as a rough synonym of "Philosopher King" is probably worth documenting. However, I understood the term as a primary economic one.  In neo-classical economics, it is convenient to consider groups of people (families, economies, etc) on aggregate in terms of one representative agent.  However, this frequently doesn't make sense, Keith Arrow's impossibility thereom (on which there is a fairly good wikipedia article) being a formally proved version of the intuitive objection that groups often don't behave in the same way as individuals.  The concept of the "benevolent dictator" was introduced by the economist Frank Ramsey as a way of sidestepping this objection, imagining a powerful individual (basically a stern father, since the unit initially under consideration was the family) whose individual preferences are imposed on the group, resolving any irrationalities in the conflicting aggregate preferences.  I'm not really familiar with editing Wikipedia so I fear I'm violating your procedure/etiquette, but there's a frustrating lack of sources online (the best I found was this: http://www.paecon.net/PAEReview/issue27/Harcourt27.htm) and I hoped you good wikipedians could remedy that.  Cheers, Dave S 10:04, 05 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep It is noteworthy according to WP:N since it is often cited in the media as stated above and therefor will be looked up. It is also verifiable in the same way as "dictator" is per se, therefor WP:V is valid, too. — comment added by DyingGasp (talk) 13:44, 9 December 2007 (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.