Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ptochocracy


 * 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   Soft redirect to the Wiktionary entry at Ptochocracy. (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica1000 21:18, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Ptochocracy

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Wikipedia is not a dictionary. The article was PRODed as such, but the prod was declined with the edit summary: looking at Google Books, it appears to be a notable concept. I disagree. A search in Google Books does turn up a fair number of hits for this term, but no further exposition. The word is apparently a neologism coined by a British aristocrat sometime in the mid to late 18th century, in a passage repeated and quoted in several other books. There is no indication this term has ever been used as anything more than a shorthand notation for "rule by the poor" and no indication that any significant attention has been given to such a system of rule. WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 19:39, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Transwiki to wiktionary, which IS a dictionary and doesn't have this as an entry, and then soft redirect to Wiktionary. See kakistocracy for a good example of how I think we should do this.— S Marshall  T/C 00:11, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Do as the Marshall says. I was going to suggest the same. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 04:44, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:54, 7 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment Wiktionary entry created. Soft redirect possible on conclusion of this AFD.  WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 11:35, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Transwiki per S Marshall, soft redirect to the newly created Wiktionary entry.--JayJasper (talk) 20:24, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Transwiki. Until there's something more to say, this isn't really appropriate for an encyclopedia article.  If someone wants to expand the article with reliable sources, that's fine.  Right now, I don't think there's enough coverage.  It seems most popular in "did you know" trivia lists and dictionaries. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:18, 10 August 2014 (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.