Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Constitutional republic 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 no consensus. I recomment someone use {{mergeto}} to start a debate about merging, since the target of any merge seems unclear. Mangojuicetalk 19:43, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Constitutional republic

This article was originally a POV fork created by the now-blocked User:RJII. Subsequently, efforts have been made to remove the POV, but it is still a fork. All the content covered by constitutional republic is also present in the main republic article, and the definition of a constitutional republic is identical to the definition of a liberal democracy. I have repeatedly attempted to change the article into a redirect, but I have been reverted every time with no arguments given. Since there are actually only two other articles in the main namespace that link to constitutional republic, [1] a redirect isn't really necessary. Delete for being a content fork. Nikodemos 03:09, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment: There was a previous AfD vote that ended with the deletion of the article, but I suspect the content is different this time around. -- Nikodemos 03:14, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
  • It is. Markedly. The previously deleted article was written in the first person. Uncle G 08:38, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge what can be merged back into representative democracy. Now, if this were an article about some form of republic bound by a constitution but whose representatives were not democratically elected, that'd be something else. --Rhwawn talk to Rhwawn 03:42, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge into Republic. (A representative democracy won't necessarily be a constitutional democracy, it may be a constitutional monarchy). Regardless of how many articles link here, I'd guess it would be a valid search term [2]. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 04:53, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
    • I'd like to point out that there isn't much to merge - the information is already there in the other articles. -- Nikodemos 09:07, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete/Merge. C56C 07:16, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
  • It might be worth asking what a non-constitutional republic is. Uncle G 08:38, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
    • I was wondering that myself... (by the way, what is your vote?) -- Nikodemos 09:07, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
      • There appear to be plenty of sources on the subject of constitutional republics, several of which appear to make a distinction between that and a plain republic (and indeed to distinguish amongst other kinds of republics, too), and at least one of which is adamant that a constitutional republic and a representative democracy are two different things. Uncle G 11:56, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
        • Of course. I never said the topic of the article was not notable; I'm putting it up for deletion because it's a content fork. The various types of republics and interpretations thereof are already discussed in the republic article. -- Nikodemos 14:31, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
      • We don't delete articles on subjects where there are copious sources discussing the subject. Nor do we delete duplicate articles. Please read our Wikipedia:Deletion policy, especially the section on problems that do not require deletion. Then read Wikipedia:Content forking#What_content.2FPOV_forking_is_not, which states quite clearly that duplicate articles and sub-articles are not content forks. Moreover, I just pointed to sources that say that it isn't just the same topic by another name. That editors have edited it into a duplicate of an article on a different topic is a byproduct of their not working from sources. Always cite and use sources. Uncle G 16:27, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
        • While all your sources use the term "constitutional republic", none of them explains the difference between a constitutional republic and a plain republic. They seem more interested in differentiating a democracy from a republic.
        • Furthermore, I challenge your assertion that the article can ever be expanded in any meaningful way. The only thing that can really be said about a constitutional republic is that it is a republic governed according to a constitution. Then the article would have to launch into a discussion of what "republic" means, which would make it a content fork of republic. If you believe that it is possible to write even a stub about constitutional republics without duplicating material from the republic article, I invite you to do it yourself as a demonstration. -- Nikodemos 21:23, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
          • Variant phrases, such as "constitutional republic" or "republican democracy", do not necessarily imply the need for separate articles. You mention Wikipedia:Content forking#What_content.2FPOV_forking_is_not, but that specifically goes on to say the duplicate articles, while not POV forks, are to be merged. And this article is not a proper "main/subarticle" setup (see my Delete comment below). - David Oberst 18:07, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, as POV fork after checking for content present here and not present at republic, and preserve any information accrued during its sojourn under separate editors. I too was wondering what a non-constitutional republic might look like. Smerdis of Tlön 19:34, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Unless the Constitution Society, the U.S. Constitution Online, the National Center for Constitutional Studies (all three of whose various articles on constitutional republics I hyperlinked to above), the CIA, the FBI, and Abraham Lincoln are all "POV warriors", the concept of a constitutional republic is not a POV fork of the concept of a republic. The way to fix this article is to cite and to work from sources, not to delete it. Uncle G 11:46, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
      • The CIA and the FBI classify countries as various kinds of republics, but neither of them explains what a "constitutional republic" actually means. Lincoln used the term "constitutional republic", but, again, did not explain how it differs from a simple "republic". Your links prove that the term "constitutional republic" is in use. They do not prove that it is used differently than "republic". -- Nikodemos 21:28, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per Uncle G! GrapePie 20:05, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as creation of banned (not blocked) user. User:RJII was banned as a group account; so any content created by that account should be considered vandalism. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 22:45, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
    • And deletion is not the sole way to remedy vandalism, per Wikipedia:Vandalism. The way to fix this article is to cite and to work from sources. Reading Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/RJII v. Firebug, the problems relevant here are lack of cited sources and overemphasis of minority viewpoints. The notion of a constitutional republic is far from being a minority viewpoint, given that one can find reams of mainstream sources (only a very few of which I hyperlinked to above) explaining what one is, employing the concept, and explaining that it is not the same as a plain republic. The article didn't cite sources from the start, and so editors worked from memory and inference from the existing text and came up with a clone of another, different, concept. The solution to that is to insist upon sources. There are 12 sources hyperlinked to above, using which any non-neutral or unverifiable content in the article can be addressed. Uncle G 11:46, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
      • Again, the only difference between a constitutional republic and a plain "republic" is that a constitutional republic uses a constitution. How is it possible to write an entire article to explain that? -- Nikodemos 21:23, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete As per nomination.Ultramarine 10:31, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Nikodemos is wrong to say that it is the identical definition to a liberal democracy. The United Kingdom is a liberal democracy but it is not a republic. It is a monarchy. A democratic monarchy or constitutional monarchy. BillyBoom 19:18, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and expand There is a substantial difference between a republic and a democracy. And yes, this extends to their sub-groups - there is a difference between a "liberal democracy" and any kind of "republic". This article should be expanded to be on par with Constitutional monarchy another "split" from liberal democracy. Further, I do not see any sources in either article supporting the AfD's contention that they are the same thing.
An example of a difference would be noted early on in the liberal democracy article - liberal democracies are pluralistic and consider rights to be "created" by the government. Constitutional republics (and this isn't in its article yet only b/c it hasn't been expanded properly) avoid pluralism - the tyranny of the majority - and consider rights to be inherent to the person, regardless of what the law may say. --Tim4christ17 19:34, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
  • This would seem to be in disagreement with a number of existing Wikipedia articles. Liberal democracy itself says "There is general agreement that the states of the European Union, Japan, the United States, Canada... are liberal democracies". The Freedom House survey methodology states "all Free countries qualify as both electoral and liberal democracies", and my assumption is that political science textbooks would generally classify the United States (and other potential "constitutional republics") as liberal democracies. Therefore I can't see how this article could successfully be expanded in the direction you suggest. - David Oberst 18:07, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - while Nikodemos may not be fully correct that this is fully equivalent to "liberal democracy", certainly it would appear to be subset of it. In any case, the point would seem to be that a "constitutional republic" whatever it might be, is certainly a subset of "republic", and needs to be covered there in the first instance. Currently it isn't, which lends credence to the "fork" or "duplicate article" arguments. If that coverage at some point justifies breaking it out in "main article/sub article" format, it can be done then, but right now that certainly isn't the case. I've made further points in response to the "Uncle G" and "Tim4christ17" comments above. Finally, I note the problematic republican democracy article, which covers similar ground.- David Oberst 18:07, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
Later Update: I further note the constitutional democracy article, which again covers similar territory. These all seem to be attempts to exclusively define variant (or overlapping) ground. Constitutional democracy would seem to be inclusive of constitutional republic and republican democracy. I now believe the best thing would be to upgrade constitutional democracy, making the other two terms redirects. It would link from and refer to liberal democracy (and republic) as necessary. If the three terms are preferentially used in various cases for rhetorical or ideological effect, then this information can be included. Note that constitutional democracy currently has flaws of its own, which include contrasting (and implicitly opposing) to Parliamentary democracy in the intro, yet including countries (Germany, Greece, etc.) from that article its own list, but this can be fixed. Since there appears to be little or no content in constitutional republic that can't be derived from liberal democracy or republic this is still effectively a Delete vote, but if necessary the closing admin can consider it "Merge and Redirect to constitutional democracy. - David Oberst 23:59, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and expand - I don't see a constitution listed as a characteristic of a republic, therefore not every republic is a constitutional republic. Its the same distintion as liberal democracy and representative democracy being subtypes of democracy. Constitutional republics are a subtype of republic (which appear to come in non-constitutional and constitutional flavors as listed in the republic article). This article delves into some details on constitution and why its used as an addition to the 'standard' republic in order limit government power.
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.