Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Socialism for the rich and capitalism for the poor


 * 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. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:34, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Socialism for the rich and capitalism for the poor

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

Unlikely title, uncommon phrase, next to no content. At most, this should be added to Corporate welfare or CC-PP game.  Ja Ga  talk 21:14, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Delete-part of other arguments, not argument in itself —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.161.68.211 (talk) 16:39, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose It's such a famous argument worth its own article.--Sum (talk) 22:42, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I was glad to see this heading and all its references. Merge it or expand it, but don't delete it without taking further action.Maryly 21 October 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Maryly (talk • contribs) 06:23, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose I agree with the proposer that this could be merged into overlapping articles such as Corporate welfare, or possibly even Moral hazard, but I think it possibly stands on its own. Certainly, "corporate welfare" tends to be used in the context of bailing out corporates, but I think the originators of this phrase may have been arguing for wider socialising forces in modern economies (i.e. away from business failures).  And I would disagree that it's an uncommon phrase - I've heard it used from time to time, although its probably lost currency to Corporate welfare in recent years.  Anyway, I'd like to see it expanded and clarified (i.e. some discussion of the mechanisms by which its proposed to happen; some case studies/examples).  But I'd go for Merge if this doesn't happen within a month or so.  Cheers, --P LUMBAGO  13:01, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
 * This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:38, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

--StevenAArmstrong (talk) 18:38, 25 October 2008 (UTC) 
 * Delete not distinctive enough as an argument or a sloganDGG (talk) 17:33, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose After the beginning of the deletion discussion, I´ve undertaken some research on this argument, also in related wordings, and have included the most relevant quotes I found in the article. The original objection of an "unlikely title, uncommon phrase, next to no content" no longer applies in view of these additions. It has clearly been raised several times by famous persons, even starting from Martin Luther King, Jr. --Chris Howard (talk) 19:40, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose Not only is this a well known phrase (recently adapted by former Sec of Labor Robert Reich on The Daily Show on Oct 16, 2008): "We have Socialism for the Rich, and Capitalism for everyone else.": http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=188622&title=Robert-Reich -- which I have added to the page, many would argue that the bailouts curently being made by world governments are a prime example of this saying in action.
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,   Sandstein   16:43, 26 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep acceptable as expanded. DGG (talk) 22:54, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep- Certainly needs a re-write to make it more encyclopedic in tone (as it is, it seems rather disjointed) But the concept itself is notable. As an aside- I think I remember an interview with Paul Krugman recently aired on Fresh Air in which he used the term (or a variation of it), which further lends notability, I'm not sure on that though. Umbralcorax (talk) 17:34, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep much better now that it's been expanded. Thanks Chris Howard - good work.  Copyediting, as per Umbralcorax's comments, would still be a good idea.  --P LUMBAGO  17:47, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Great work Chris! --Sum (talk) 21:14, 27 October 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.