Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Political society


 * 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. - Philippe 20:01, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Political society

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

Contested prod. Wholly inadequate and unencyclopedic article, unreferenced and so badly written as to be irredeemable.

1. It consists mostly of disjointed fragments, not complete sentences

2. It contains dense phrases such as "fetishized postmodern discourse" and "ambiguous use of the idea of civil society by academics" which appear to have been lifted out of context from a scholarly text and convey nothing at all to the reader - if indeed they ever did mean anything anyway

3. It consists almost entirely of unexplained assertions, again without any context.

There was originally a reference to a Polish language publication which is not readily available for English speaking wikipedia editors to check. Now there are no references at all. Therefore the article fails WP:VER andy (talk) 20:51, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Update - some references have now been added but they're either so general as to be useless (e.g. all of Locke's Two Treatises of Government) or simply misleading (e.g. a confusing statement about Poland is linked to Civil society, which contains no reference to Poland) andy (talk) 08:33, 1 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete. This essay is pure OR. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 20:56, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - It looks like this was written in Polish and ran through a translator. It's also entirely OR. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 21:37, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete D-grade OR. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 21:53, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. If it is a translation from a Polish original, then I don't want to take the risk that it may be a derivative of a copyrighted work.  Bwrs (talk) 23:20, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete as a badly written piece of original research. If it is notable (as there are plenty of ghits), it will have to be rewritten with a more appropriate tone. —  Wen li  (reply here) 00:00, 1 July 2008 (UTC)


 * keep as concept important to social and political sciences, political philosophy. it is not perfect and needs improvements but not deletion. definitly it is not OR, according to given original resources that should be studied before deletion.--Discourseur (talk) 10:47, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. The concept seems notable. If the entry can be rewritten to include better refs and for readability, it would be a "keep".--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 17:15, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions.   —Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 17:17, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions.   —Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 17:17, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. Yes, "if". It doesn't need re-writing, it needs deleting and writing from scratch. andy (talk) 22:27, 3 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Move to Wikitionary. — BQZip01 —  talk 06:17, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep as it looks more that reasonable and also notable. Tocqueville uses idea of political society and political association as well so it is good source. Article definitely needs improvements and I can do some later - now going on holidays. --seventy3 12:59, 5 July 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Seventy3 (talk • contribs)
 * I'd withdraw the AfD if significant improvements were made to the article but not on the basis of promises of future improvements by a newbie editor who has so far only made one minor edit to an article. Sorry. When you come back maybe you can write a new version from scratch. andy (talk) 16:48, 5 July 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.