Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oligosocialism

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 of the debate was delete. Proto///type 14:53, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Oligosocialism

POV, personal musing (doesn't deserve to be called original "research"), and an extreme protologism. It has the dubious distinction of not scraping up even a single Google hit. Delete. Nikodemos 18:24, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, fails WP:NEO, WP:NPOV, and WP:NOR. --Coredesat talk 22:31, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
• delete as per nom Pete.Hurd 02:10, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete blatant neologism. SM247 04:43, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and Coredesat. ShaunES 09:10, 1 July 2006 (UTC).

• Comment. I authored this stub. A google search of "socialism for the rich" returns 14,700 results. There is a growing understanding that social programs are often designed to benefit the wealthy as opposed to everyone. It is important to document the recognition of this abuse. I have heard the term oligosocialism two times, but I cannot find a google hit for the term either. If the title is the main objection to the article, I do not mind changing it. For some similar terms, please see terms "oligarchy" and "oligopoly." I can easily add substantial documentation of cases where social programs have been structured to benefit distinct portions of the population. I don't think that too many examples would add to the general idea, however. Nevertheless, if others want to add examples, I am not opposed. I quote an internationally recognized author and historian in the article: Gore Vidal and I would like to add a quote from Noam Chomsky - please see below. I don't really see how this could be considered personal musing. Indeed, I believe that the article needs to be "beefed up," and I have no objection to doing so. If others have direct proof that there is no such thing as socialism for the rich they should add the information to the article rather than to label the article as pov, personal musing, protologism, or some other negative attribute. I see too often the same types of phrases thrown about to silence contributors. As I said, I consider the objection to the term oligosocialism as a valid concern. I do think however, that it very quickly conveys the foundation of the subject in question. Nevertheless I requested assistance in moving this article to another title - please see the discussion pages. Here is a section from a wikipedia article that I would like to add or link:

"In a different critique, the notable political activist Noam Chomsky, argues that the wealthy use free-market rhetoric to justify imposing greater economic risk upon the lower classes, while being insulated from the rigours of the market by the political and economic advantages that such wealth affords.[11] He remarked, "the free market is socialism for the rich—[free] markets for the poor and state protection for the rich."[12]

Finally, if there are any critics who believe that the phenomenon of "socialism for the rich" does not exist, please make your case. --24.206.125.213 09:08, 1 July 2006 (UTC)BMIKESCI

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.