- 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The result was nomination withdrawn. Ron Ritzman (talk) 12:59, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Polity (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Wikipedia is not a dictionary/thesaurus. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 06:24, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agreed. Jørdan 06:35, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I looked at the history and the lack of encyclopaedic development after nearly five years, not at its potential as I should have. Jørdan 11:23, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. This is not a dictionary entry but the description of an important concept in political science. As such it is the subject of a huge amount of literature. To mention only a few random Google Books entries: Polity: political culture and the nature of politics, Craig L. Carr, Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 2007, ISBN 9780742548251; The polity, Rand McNally political science series, Norton E. Long, Rand McNally, 1962; Constructing the world polity: essays on international institutionalization, John Gerard Ruggie, Routledge, 1998, ISBN 9780415099905; Polity and society: philosophical underpinnings of social science paradigms, Michael Haas, Greenwood Publishing Group, 1992, ISBN 9780275935580. Sandstein 10:22, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy keep -- As original nominator. Another user (Mathsci) has shared with me a source that demonstrates how one could go about writing an article on this that wouldn't essentially be either a dictionary entry or a duplication of government/state/political organization. I've clearly goofed up here, and would suggest that this should be kept. Sorry about the disruption. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 10:31, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy keep second Sandstein and Jrtayloriv. Fifelfoo (talk) 11:07, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Close Essential encyclopaedic topic that warrants development. Jørdan 11:23, 9 January 2011 (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.