Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Narco-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 Speedy keep per WP:SKCRIT#1. Clear consensus to keep, and the nomination has effectively been withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Ddcm8991 (talk) 18:44, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Narco-capitalism

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The article is basically a dictionary entry of the terms "narco-capitalism", "narco-state", and "narco-economy"; it thus quite clearly falls under WP:NOTDIC. While the article explains in which context the term is used, it doesn't offer a proper definition. Moreover, the article lacks any content about the historical development of "narco-capitalism", what differentiates it from other types of capitalism, how a narco-capitalistic economy and society functions, which countries are considered to be narco-capitalistic (not just examples!), etc. Even though the article has been around since 2004, it quite clearly doesn't meet the encyclopedia's criteria in terms of style and content. Arbraxan (talk) 15:10, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:44, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:44, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:44, 28 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep. There is no deadline, deletion is not for clean-up, and the article easily satisfies GNG. See, for example, Pine (2007), Blackman (2010), Petras and Veltmeyer (2016), et alia. Cnilep (talk) 01:41, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree that the subject would meet GNG, but the article in its current form doesn't and still fails WP:NOTDIC. One alternative would be to move it to WP:DRAFTS. --Arbraxan (talk) 06:18, 29 June 2016 (UTC
 * We understand GNG differently, then. The standard reads, "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list" (emphasis added). As I understand it, the General Notability Guideline relates to the notability of the topic or subject, not the state of the article. Cnilep (talk) 00:40, 30 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep easy GNG. Jonpatterns (talk) 09:54, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Also note that User:Jonpatterns has now added bona fide non-dictionary content which does move it beyond WP:NOTDIC. Keep. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:34, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Alright, alright. There seems to be a broad consensus for keeping and thanks to Jonpatterns for his work. I'll leave the request here until the end of the week to maybe get some people interested in improving it and then would simply take the request for deletion down (if that's how things are done). --Arbraxan (talk) 20:45, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but that is not 'how things are done,' here. WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP and your argument now meets criterion 1 of WP:SKCRIT, from what I can see. I'd non-admin close it myself, but I have already expressed a !vote above. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:58, 30 June 2016 (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.