Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Political machine


 * 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The result was withdrawn-Scott Mac (Doc) 01:47, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Political machine

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

This is an essay, and it is factually wrong. "political machine" and "machine politics" are simply pejorative labels applied to infer that a politician or political administration is corrupt, nepotist, controlled by power-groups or sub-democratic somehow. No one ever used the term neutrally. It is the equivalent of saying "corrupt politician", and we certainly don't have an article on that phrase (since most politicians have been called corrupt by someone). All we could neutrally offer here would be a dicdef indicating what the caller is inferring when they use the term, but last I checked we don't do dicdefs. My immediate reaction here was that this needed cleaned up, but I'm damned if I can see how that isn't POV or a dicdef. If anyone can see a way, I will withdraw this nomination, but please don't vote keep unless you can suggest what the article could contain. Scott Mac (Doc) 19:45, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, there's the encyclopaedia entry for "machine politics" in William Safire's Safire's Political Dictionary (Oxford University Press US, 2008, ISBN 9780195343342, pp 406.) that provides a fairly good guide. &#9786; It takes up one and a half columns. Uncle G (talk) 20:28, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep It's a notable historical concept, and the rise of machine politics (as opposed to mere faction) is a crucial part of the history of democracy. OR, and the like, can be cleaned up in the article, and does not merit deletion. RayAYang (talk) 20:36, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * RayAYang, this nomination has nothing to do with notability. The term is notable - but we don't do mere terms. Concept? I don't think this is a concept. It's a term that is/was used as a pejorative attack. Can you outline what would be in the article if cleaned up? Because I've no idea what wouldn't ultimately be POV.--Scott Mac (Doc) 20:46, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Disagreement with the article content is not a rationale for deletion. Improve, not remove. The concept of a political machine is controversial but that should not prevent us from producing a neutral article about it. --Ryan Delaney talk 20:41, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions.   -- RayAYang (talk) 20:36, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * No, disagreement with the article content is NOT a rationale for deletion - who is suggesting it is? I'm suggesting that no article could be written on this. It isn't that it is "controversial", it is that it is just a negative term, not an objective concept. If you think a neutral article can be written, please outline it and I will withdraw, but don't vote keep without answering the problems actually outlined in the nomination.--Scott Mac (Doc) 20:46, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * You're right that it's not an objective concept. We would have to delete a great deal of Wikipedia articles if we removed every concept that is not objective. For an example of a neutral article written on the history of a controversial perjorative term, see Islamofascism. --Ryan Delaney talk 20:52, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Notable concept with historical usage. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 21:02, 5 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep - the article isn't great, but the all you need to do is see Boss Tweed to conclude that the concept is real. Avruch  T 21:10, 5 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment Please see Tammany Hall for another example of a famous political machine. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 21:14, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Looks like the nominator and others are working to improve the article. Before anyone says "AfD is not for _____", I would say that this is where the forum is at its finest: calling attention to an article that could be saved if there are people willing to do so.  Kudos to McDonald, Delaney, and Avruch on this point.  Mandsford (talk) 21:26, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * We have other fora for calling attention to bad articles, not least among them WP:ICU. AfD is for irretrievably unencyclopaedic articles. Skomorokh  21:27, 5 December 2008 (UTC)


 * (edit conflict) Keep and move to SNOW close - this concept is very well-used in reporting, and finding sources which fulfill WP:GNG would not be at all difficult, as Uncle G indicates. Nor is it true that a neutral article cannot be written; see for example capitalist roader, cam whore, market fundamentalism, quantum mysticism, lifestyle anarchism and so on. This is an inappropriate use of AfD. Skomorokh  21:26, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

FYI - the "selected reading" texts that I added are nearly all available in their entirety on Google Books. Avruch  T 21:29, 5 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment This looks like SNOW. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 21:38, 5 December 2008 (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.