Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Political society (3rd nomination)


 * 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.  Ryan Postlethwaite See the mess I've created or let's have banter 10:53, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Political society
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Recreation of a deleted page on a non-notable term. This page was recreated with substantially the same claims made in the previous iterations, viz. that political society is a notable term of art used by Alexis de Tocqueville that is not already covered by the article on Politics. It is not, and the contention that it is seems to rely upon a mistranslation from French to Polish to English.  RJC  TalkContribs 22:34, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

are you providing others with true facts rjc?

http://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/t/tocqueville/alexis/democracy/book1.html#book1.6

http://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/t/tocqueville/alexis/democracy/book4.html

and search

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1843/critique-hpr/ch05.htm

--Żęść (talk) 23:11, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment The first hit in google is interesting: What do you have to say about this source?  Here's another interesting source: .  Or this one: .  Heck, look at the 34,000+ google scholar hits for the exact phrase Political society:   I am leaning towards a Keep but I am uncertain and want more discussion first.  Cazort (talk) 00:27, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Reply. I'm sorry if my nomination was brief; I probably assumed too much of the past discussions.  The phrase "political society" occurs often—the question is whether it is a special term not already covered by politics, society, or the state of nature.  The phrase does indeed appear in the titles of a chapter and a part in Democracy in America, but Tocqueville does not describe it or suggest that it is a special term; it does not appear in the subject index of Mansfield and Winthrop's translation of Democracy in America, contrary to expectations were it a special term that Tocqueville used.  John Locke also uses the phrase "political society," but synonymously with civil society, society, and civil government, and in opposition to the state of nature; his usage is captured by the other articles.  The questions for me seem to be, In whose thought is this a central enough term to warrant an independent article rather than a dictionary entry? and Why is that idea not better addressed in the articles on those people?  Concerning the Marx link, the hosting site for that reference does not include "political society" in its Marxist glossary, nor does the phrase appear at all in the article on Karl Marx; it does not seem to be an important term in his thought.   Partha Chatterjee and Doug Bandow use "political society" in a technical sense, but who has responded to their work in such a way as to satisfy the third-party coverage requirement of notability?  Are they talking about the same thing when they use the same phrase (which seems necessary if we are to say that they are working on the same thing)?  And why isn't their thought best described in the articles on them?  The article as written is not about a theme in anyone's thought, however, but rather asserts the existence of something called "political society" about whose essence we can have a discussion.  The last time this article was created, it served as a POVFORK for original research by a now-banned user (Discourseur); the latest version bears these same hallmarks, down to the references to Tocqueville.  This article has been deleted twice already with no new arguments offered for its recreation.   RJC  TalkContribs 01:39, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Aren't the citations included a third-party coverage that exclude also possibility of original research? It is also not true that Tocqueville did not describe the term - his direct de~finition of it is present in the reference to Schleifer.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Americanazifrommunich (talk • contribs) 16:57, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Another newly created account contributing to the discussion. This one's already been banned (username violation), so I'm not going to submit it for checkuser unless this AfD ends in keep.   RJC  TalkContribs 20:16, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Additional Note The user that recreated this page has since been identified as a sockpuppet of the now-banned user who created this page twice in the past; see Sockpuppet investigations/Discourseur/Archive.  RJC  TalkContribs 09:37, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for letting us know. This is useful information, and I am agreeing with you that the current material needs to go.  I am not convinced, however, that we shouldn't have a page on this.  I see that John Locke uses the phrase synomymously with "civil society", but what about the other source I gave: .  That seems to be a more specific use?  Cazort (talk) 13:25, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Reply. That one seems like a synonym for politics:  "the place where public demands get                            tackled by specific political institutions."   RJC  TalkContribs 22:36, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Except the fact that political society is a place, sphere, part of social world while politicsis a process that may not occur in political society. It is a term of wider meaning.
 * Sockpuppet This comment was made by Americanazinmunich, a sockpuppet of Americanazifrommunich, who is probably also a suckpuppet of Discourseur/Wer34 but already banned. The only comments friendly to the article's retention are by Cazort, who has not affirmed an opinion of keep.   RJC  TalkContribs 15:21, 8 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete as a non-specific phrase or, optionally, move to wiktionary. DGG (talk) 22:07, 5 May 2009 (UTC)


 * problem is that it is in use by many scholars and they ascribe to it an importance and a specific meaning. it is completely different from this old outdated chap Locke, but very similar to modern thought of Tocqueville and Marx. shouldn't it be complemented rather? --Wer34 (talk) 11:41, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Wer34 is a new user with few edits outside of this discussion (contributions). Because a now-banned user re-created this page and has already engaged in this discussion with sockpuppets, I have requested a checkuser.  RJC  TalkContribs 15:23, 6 May 2009 (UTC)  — Update:  confirmed.   RJC  TalkContribs 20:16, 6 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete, Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Per DGG. Stifle (talk) 08:54, 12 May 2009 (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.