Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rule of man


 * 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. Withdrawn per nominator. (non-admin closure) Triona (talk) 07:03, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Rule of man

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

This article does not contain any references to reliable sources to allow the content of the article or it's notability to be verified. Without verifiability and reliable sources, this article appears to fail no original research. Because the notability of the topic can't be verified by reliable sources and because of questions of original research, I'm proposing deletion of this article. - Triona (talk) 00:01, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Dictatorship article fails to give any evidence for its notability as a distinct phrase, and i could no obvious evidence to support this ever being expanded more than this. concept easily falls under other article names.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 16:25, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:09, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:09, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. There's certainly no shortage of reliable sources about this subject to allay concerns about notability, verifiability or original research. A few minutes' searching finds plenty of books that cover Aristotle's take on the subject, this one that has chapters on Hobbes's and Locke's views, these ones that cover Confucian and Qing Dynasty views, and these scholarly papers have "rule of man" in the title, mostly in a Chinese context. I've only skimmed the surface of the Google Books and Scholar searches helpfully linked in the nomination. There may be a case for a merge to rule of law, as nearly all of the sources cover rule of man as the antithesis of rule of law, but I certainly don't think that dictatorship would be a good redirect target. Rule of man could be used as a philosophical underpinning for dictatorship (although I don't think that most dictators worry about such niceties), but it also underpins other concepts such as absolute monarchy and sovereign immunity. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:20, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * @ Phil Bridger - Awesome research. Based on that, I think it's appropriate that this nomination for deletion be withdrawn, as the rationale for deletion just got sunk. Thank you! Any redirect or merge can be discussed at another venue (talk pages? ) but for now I think you've made it clear the article is salvageable. Triona (talk) 07:03, 11 September 2010 (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.