Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Criticism of government


 * 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 delete. Without prejudice against recreation as a disambiguation page Eddie891 Talk Work 01:52, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Criticism of government

 * – ( View AfD View log )

This article contains no useful information at all, is unsourced, and doesn't help the reader understand the topic. I would suggest converting this to a disambiguation, as there are many more specific articles on this topic.  Crazy Boy  826  23:37, 4 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete - This an overly broad and vague topic. The "See Also" section is a coat rack of criticisms of various ideologies and constitutional structures. -Indy beetle (talk) 04:12, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete - This is simply too broad to be an article. "Criticism of X" would only seem to work if it's narrowed to a specific field or a specific work.  There are hundreds of governments, none of which are identical such that the inclusion of any particular "criticism" would simply be an arbitrary selection. DocFreeman24 (talk) 05:29, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete - No useful information  Athel cb (talk) 07:59, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete Not enough to qualify for a wiki article. Pilean (talk) 12:37, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:56, 5 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete with a possibility to recreate as a disambig. page or a list. This could serve as a disambig. page, but it does not provide proper disambig. This might be also a list, but it is not properly constructed as a list. My very best wishes (talk) 21:58, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom  -- Devoke  water  17:17, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete This article seems very vague, is remarkably short, and only describes its own name - mainly because the very topic is too vague. I agree with My very best wishes' (potential) suggestion of a disambiguation page. Forvana 19:57, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
 * comment per nom Rajuiu (talk) 14:46, 11 April 2021 (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.