Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kratocracy

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 merge to might makes right. MBisanz ^talk 02:20, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kratocracy[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This could just be a failure of imagination on my part, but it's hard for me to see how this is ever going to be more than a WP:DICDEF. I think various governments could arguably be categorized as kratocracies; realistically, you're not going to have a state overtly organized as such. I guess some animals organize this way, but calling that a government is a huge stretch. BDD (talk) 15:56, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. BDD (talk) 15:57, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as DICDEF (at best); the miserable apology for a source says it all really. It's a misnomer, it should be Kraterocracy, but as we're binning it I guess it doesn't matter. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:38, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to William Pepperell Montague, which presently does not even mention the subject's devised term. This will enhance and improve the merge target article, à la WP:PRESERVE. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:35, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Do we know if this was an important idea of his or just a one-off coinage? The fact that his article doesn't mention the term makes me think the latter. --BDD (talk) 14:26, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@BDD: Maybe nobody thought to add the information to the subject's article because they were not aware of the term's existence. If this article is deleted sans a merge, perhaps readers never will be, like the term never existed. Maybe we can try to change Wikipedia's slogan to "keeping readers dumbed-down via omission of facts, because the topic wasn't notable enough for a standalone article." North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:30, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I guess the point is, was this one of dozens of trivial terms he mentioned once, or was it a serious usage? I've failed to find evidence for the latter online, but print might be different. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:40, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 20:30, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to might makes right. The term has some currency in scholarly sources and seems to be worth a mention there, together with a brief discussion of Montague's philosophy on the subject. However, it's really just a synonym for "might makes right", and not a form of government as the infobox suggests. --Sammy1339 (talk) 17:45, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect as suggested by {{U{Sammy1339}} and per WPP:CHEAP. Bearian (talk) 21:20, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds like a more logical move. I could support that. --BDD (talk) 22:46, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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.