Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Top-down democracy

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. The term, IMHO, based on researching links, is notable enough to warrant an article. However this article isn't it. Deleted without prejudice against recreation by an author who is willing to write a good article. Redlinks to this article NOT edited out of other articles, on purpose. Recreation with same content would be grounds for speedy, though. --++Lar: t/c 04:12, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Top-down democracy

Delete. Adjective/term combo not important enough to deserve its own article; it's a description best left for inclusion in other related articles. — Stevie is the man! ^{Talk | Work} 20:03, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

You make dogmatic statements. Give reasons. For example, I too can make dogmatic statements. Do not Delete. Adjective/term combo important enough to deserve its own article; it's a description best not left for inclusion in other related articles.Where do we go from here? Skovoroda 21:47, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Your vote is a conflict of interest as you are the author of the article.

Where does it say that someone who has contributed to an article cannot vote?Skovoroda 03:42, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Surely you realize you have a conflict of interest in voting on your own article. Not sure if it's in the official rules, but I gather these kind of votes are discounted. — Stevie is the man! ^{Talk | Work} 05:08, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

My statements are not dogmatic--I don't oppose mentioning this phraseology in other existing articles. It's just not enough of a standalone concept and therefore not encyclopedic.

If I am correct, it is of monumental importance. It constitutes one of the basic divisions of democracy.Skovoroda 03:42, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

• I've run into authors before who suggest that I oppose their concept when I think the article should be deleted--the reality is that I'm a pro-democracy activist as well as somebody very concerned about the integrity of the Wikipedia. The inclusion of this article (and the one for bottom-up democracy) negatively affects that integrity. — Stevie is the man! ^{Talk | Work} 01:17, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

You throw around terms like "integrity" and "encyclopedic" -- what are you talking about?Skovoroda 03:42, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Not every phrase that exists is encyclopedic. Including any term anyone decides to barf up hurts the intregrity of an encyclopedia. It's why I'm not creating an article for Steve Magruder. He doesn't have encyclopedic relevance as of yet.  :) And this also applies to your descriptive phrase. — Stevie is the man! ^{Talk | Work} 05:48, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Is "barf up" a euphemism?Skovoroda 20:38, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. As I mentioned in the article's Talk page, as written this is merely one person's critique of the American campaign process; it is also tied in with the author's bottom-up democracy work, etc. - David Oberst 21:54, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I have not written a critique -- which would amount to an evaluation, hence a POV. The whole thing is a factual description. If you see it as a critique, then you are reading into it something that's not there.Skovoroda 03:42, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

An “evaluation” is still original research, no? Wiki Wikardo 16:00, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, an evaluation would constitute original research, but the article has no evaluation.Skovoroda 20:34, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

• Strong keep, it's a term in widespread use. See Google Scholar, for example. - ulayiti (talk) 16:02, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete It does neither cite it's sources nor is it written in an easily understandable way. Deleteme42 00:24, 5 June 2006 (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.