Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Neosocialism

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 on what to do. It is probably notable, with some sources to back it up, but needs extensive cleanup. Bearian (talk) 18:34, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Neosocialism

Neosocialism (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

The article lacks a coherent defintion, that 'neosocialism' would constitute a more or less coherent political tendency of its own. The word 'neo' can be prefixed to virtually any 'Ism', and we can't have an article for every ism that has ever had 'neo' prefixed to it. Soman (talk) 11:15, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

• Comment, however, the french interwiki seems far more coherent. It could perhaps be agreed that the English article be a mirror of that one, weeding out all other essayist material. --Soman (talk) 11:19, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
• WikiProject Politics has been informed of this ongoing discussion. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 13:48, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
• Merge to socialism unless it can clearly be established that the concept is substantially different, otherwise keep as, even if not 100% clear, the concept is defined well enough to be the topic of speeches and published discussion. Torc2 (talk) 23:53, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

  Please no merge. The main article is long and adding this mess into it won't help anyone. Pavel Vozenilek (talk) 10:59, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

• Unfortunately Wiki doesn't make exceptions for that. I really wish it did. If the article cannot stand alone, it must be merged; if it is not merged due to size and cannot stand alone, it must be deleted. This unfortunate dichotomy is forced upon us until Wiki policies catch up to the fact that a single topic may be too long to fit on a single article page, but until then, the only choices are merge or delete. My advice is to go to the talk pages of the policies forcing this unworkable situation and voice your displeasure loudly over and over until the rules are updated to something more realistic. Torc2 (talk) 11:29, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

• Weak Keep as the term is supported reliable sources. Majoreditor (talk) 04:55, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
• Comment: if the text is kept please insert tags like {[cleanup}} or translation-requested or something like that. The current form it has very low value a reader. Pavel Vozenilek (talk) 10:59, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment—Not to mention {{cleanup-afd}} as well. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 16:12, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - significant media coverage. Addhoc (talk) 21:14, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - OMG what a mess. I agree with nominator. Maybe this needs to be a disamb page. This term is clearly used to refer to several absolutely distinct poli-eco views. --Evb-wiki (talk) 01:49, 28 December 2007 (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.