Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Post-democracy


 * 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 keep. WP:SNOW, possibly bad faith WP:SK. (non-admin closure) ansh 666 01:24, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Post-democracy

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Notability not established, this is not a theory or unique concept, sources are one person, article is extensively quoting one person, self-promotion UScentric (talk) 03:20, 6 August 2016 (UTC)


 * keep the concept may have originated with one person, but it has received massive attention. The original paper has received 1400 citations; the translations have received many hundred; and there are a number of reviews and other examinations of the topic. See this. Vanamonde (talk) 14:12, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:22, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:23, 6 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Merge to Colin Crouch. This article is entirely about his thoughts on the topic. It should be under his name. No need to give the same material in two articles. Kitfoxxe (talk) 16:49, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Oops. That article is up for deletion too. Secondary sources are needed. Kitfoxxe (talk) 16:51, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
 * His article will probably be kept by the academic standards, so merging will take care of the issues, except for secondary sources still needed and would be helpful.Kitfoxxe (talk) 17:05, 6 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Speedy Keep - Nom is an SPA who started by doing some blanking at Cultural assimilation and then started nominating for deletion several articles that seem vaguely related to P2P research, without any apparent knowledge of what WP:N is. &mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 17:59, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
 * If a merge is a good idea, that can be discussed on the talk page. &mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 17:59, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep Crouch's analysis seems quite notable. It's old wine in new bottles though – see the iron law of oligarchy, for example.  For this reason it's best to to keep the theorising separate from the biographical pages. Andrew D. (talk) 20:44, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep Nomination implies no WP:BEFORE check has been conducted; doing one finds dozens of RS on the topic. WP:GNG. FourViolas (talk) 05:09, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep -- non trivial topic with sufficient RS coverage to establish notability. Merge may be an option to be decided on later. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:41, 7 August 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.