Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Delegative 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. Deathphoenix ʕ 16:48, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No notable usage offered (see article's Talk for details). - David Oberst 06:45, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• delete as per nom. Rklawton 06:46, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Original research at best. Tychocat 09:20, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --Coredesat 12:30, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• comment the term seems fairly widely used, as here and here. Maybe it just needs some cleanup. Adambiswanger1 14:11, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I was only involved in the article because it was bad. I've never heard this term except as a synonym for representative democracy. --Tjss(Talk) 19:16, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The article appears to be an argument for the existence for a very narrowly used term that's a synonym of a preexisting encyclopedia term rather than a proper encyclopedia term on its own accord. There _may_ be something there that would work as a blurb within representative democracy, but as a standalone concept, I see no notability. — Stevie is the man! ^{Talk | Work} 19:20, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Mergeto Representative Democracy. The language is too chatting and reads too much like lecture notes, but the idea of distinguishing between representative and delegative democracies is interesting and presented NPOV. Interlingua 19:40, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why should it be merged if there is no notable usage? It's basically a bunch of stuff that one guy made up. I'd agree if his material came from an academic journal or the like. Rklawton 21:28, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per above. —Khoikhoi 01:02, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. —Nightstallion (?) 12:42, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is an interesting situation. We are going to delete an idea of a possible type of democracy simply because there is no standard term for it -- or so it seems. The idea is that voters in small groupings elect a delgate to represent them in some higher level assembly. For example, Native Americans elected a chief who represented them in inter-tribal assemblies. What is this type of democracy to be called? In Russia, workers in factories elected delegates who met in inter-factory councils. What are we to call this type of democracy? These seem to be two example of some type of -- what shall we call it? "representative" democracy. But it isn't the usual type of representative democracy, its a peculiar type of representative democracy that doesn't seem to have a handy name. It has been proposed to call it "delegative democracy" or "bottom-up democracy" -- but, obviously, there is resistance to using these phrases. So, what is the genus of which soviet and Native American tribal federations are species? Does this mean that if we can't come up with a name, the idea can't be expressed? And does it mean that if you can't name it, it doesn't exist? A situation out of 1984?Skovoroda 20:56, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you would take the time to read our policies as they have already been presented to you, you would know why this is happening. The short of it is this: we do not publish original research here. I've said this before: do the work, get it published in a peer-reviewed journal, and then come back here and report on it. In short, if it isn't verifiable, it doesn't belong here. If you can't get your work published and you still want to write essays on Democracy, start up a nice blog somewhere (else). Rklawton 01:42, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Again, you make the incorrect assumption that we're trying to suppress information we don't want to see here. Nothing could be further from the truth (note: I am very pro-democracy and run the Democracy 2.0 website, so why would I want to suppress articles related to democracy?) When any added content is in dispute, the party that added said content is asked to provide proof of encyclopedic relevance. Your arguments here in text convince nobody because frankly, we aren't looking for arguments and we cannot take your word for it anyway--that's why we ask for sources that prove the existence of the concept as is described in the article in question. And this policy applies to *everyone*, so to be fair, please play by the rules like everyone else must do. Further "arguments" are a waste of textual space and will be ignored. —  Stevie is the man!  ^{Talk | Work} 04:21, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article by Guillermo O’Donnell, “Delegative Democracy,” Journal of Democracy 5 (January 1994), pp. 55–69, uses the term "delegative democracy" in a peer-reviewed journal, and there are very many references to it -- so, at least his usage should be reported on. And since there is some ambiguity in the use of the phrase, an attempt should be made at disambiguation.

I'm sorry to read that Stevie the man isn't looking for arguments . . . you are removing yourself from rational discourse.Skovoroda 15:58, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia is not a discussion board. When you're asked for sources, nobody is interested in rational or irrational arguments to support the thesis of your article, but rather in references and links to sources. Absent that, there's nothing else to talk about.

Do you have a link to said article, or can you post the relevant text from the article? Also, if that's all you can find, perhaps that deserves a blurb in representative democracy, but an entire article based on a term one guy coined? —  Stevie is the man!  ^{Talk | Work} 17:19, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The O'Donnell paper is available as a PDF here[1]. He's a senior Helen Kellogg professor at Notre Dame, and the paper(s) he's written on this seem to have some currency with political science seminars and papers, etc. If someone knows enough about O'Donnell's notability and wants to create an entry for him, including a section on his "delegative" work, feel free, and have "delegative democracy" redirect there. Or if it has generated a wide body of other work and notability, a new article could be created under this title. But as I noted somewhere, O'Donnell has nothing to do with the rest of the current article, which can be deleted. - David Oberst 22:12, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

From skimming the article, I have surmised that the author has re-discovered illiberal democracy. Perhaps let's add a link to O'Donnell's article there? —  Stevie is the man!  ^{Talk | Work} 01:31, 14 June 2006 (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.