Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Capitalist state

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 keep. Poor article (everyone agrees on that), notable topic. Next up, article improvement. Drmies (talk) 02:18, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Capitalist state[edit]

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

Editor refuses to allow very bad article to be improved Scott Illini (talk) 22:25, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think that defining a "capitalist state" is important, esp. with the changes to this form by the Chinese gov't. The article should be improved with sourced material, not personal opinion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sigiheri (talk • contribs) 22:32, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – While the article needs improvement, including a definition, it has enough WP:POTENTIAL to be worthwhile. Discussions regarding improvements to the article should go on the article talk page. The rationale given by the nominator is a weak one for supporting deletion. (Alternatives also include merger into other articles.) – S. Rich (talk) 22:40, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - I agree with S. Rich. The article is worthwhile but needs substantial work. Google Books and Google Scholar a vast number of links to the term. scope_creep (talk) 01:02, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - A shitty original essay followed by a shittier list. The problem being that this is definitely an encyclopedic topic. If anybody is edit warring to defend the current incomprehensibly bad sack of fertilizer, they need to stop immediately, because this mess needs to be chainsawed and started over. That is all. Carrite (talk) 02:06, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete per WP:TNT. There's probably a legitimate article to be had at Capitalist state, but it doesn't resemble this in the slightest. But maybe we sheeple in the autocratic United States are just too blind to see The Truth on this one. No doubt the subjects of infamous autocratic states such as Canada and Germany would feel the same way. --BDD (talk) 23:47, 19 April 2013 (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.