Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Socialism for the rich and capitalism for the poor (2nd 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   keep. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 03:45, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Socialism for the rich and capitalism for the poor
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  •  AfD statistics)

Original research. a couple of sentence of intro and then a long lists of the variants of the phrase. No references which discuss this concept in academic way. Xuz (talk) 01:09, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. OR, take any relevant quotes to their respective pages. This sounds like an essay. Doc Quintana (talk) 01:45, 12 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Abstaining. BUT, if kept it should be reverted to | a prev ver. Looks like a quote farm now, which was | done by an IP-editor.  Had more potential in its previous state, IMO. BigK HeX (talk) 04:37, 12 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. It's sourced.  It's been used multiple times relating to the GFC bailouts.  What does it mean that the article is "an essay".  It's got words and sentences in it sure, but how could it not?  Edit, do not delete. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.105.42.96 (talk) 09:48, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

*Delete per Doc Quintana, Hex. Ravensfire (talk) 14:49, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Ravensfire, how can you say delete per Hex when Hex does not recommend deletion? He is abstaining with a recommendation that the article, if kept, be reverted to an earlier, and better, version.  I concur with that opinion.  Frankly, the arguments for deletion are quite poor, as this is not an example of original research.  The article, certainly in its better form, gave a number of examples of the term in use, or close variants of it.  The article needs a great deal of work, but I do not think it qualifies for AfD. ---  RepublicanJacobite  The'FortyFive'  17:30, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment I agreed with his reasoning, but had my own preference for the action taken. The revamped version is much, much better. Ravensfire (talk) 16:30, 16 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep after revamp - useful and sourced. Ravensfire (talk) 16:31, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Has now been re-worked it based on the version indicated by BigK HeX, plus further changes re-integrated and some re-wordings. (And it had been judged as keep when in very similar form, on October 29, 2008, see here.) Is not a case of original research. --Chris Howard (talk) 22:39, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep, this is a fairly well-known phrase with some significance in contemporary political and economic debates. Everyking (talk) 07:20, 15 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. Famous topic worth of its own article.--Sum (talk) 16:51, 15 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep or Merge to bailouts. This phrase is used quite often and the information on this article could go elsewhere.Teeninvestor (talk) 20:31, 17 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment: the phrase by far does not refer only to bailouts, see examples in the article, so a merge with bailouts is not recommendable,. --Chris Howard (talk) 17:58, 18 December 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.