Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Semi-direct democracy
 | This is an archive of past discussions about Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current main page. |
This page is an archive of the discussion surrounding the proposed deletion of the page entitled Semi-direct democracy.
This page is kept as an historic record.
The result of the debate was to redirect to Direct democracy, after a merge was performed.
Delete; The article is very light, only has one external link and the term itself is of questionable encyclopedic relevance. There is "direct democracy" and there is "indirect democracy", but "semi-direct"?? This delete vote should also apply to "Mediated direct democracy", which redirects to this term. -- Stevietheman 17:49, 14 May 2004 (UTC)Merge with Direct democracy and redirect Kim Bruning 17:47, 14 May 2004 (UTC)- Why? What does one have to do with the other? Delete. RickK 06:13, 15 May 2004 (UTC)
- Keep and research the subject better. If there's people (like you ;-) ) who ask questions like that, then the article has at least some relevance. Comment: There are many links to the article. So if we can't keep, at least still redirect to prevent breaking links. Kim Bruning 08:59, 15 May 2004 (UTC)
- I'm not opposed to redirecting the term after its minimal contents are merged into direct democracy. So, my vote is slightly modified to
delete &redirect. -- Stevietheman 15:19, 15 May 2004 (UTC)
- I'm not opposed to redirecting the term after its minimal contents are merged into direct democracy. So, my vote is slightly modified to
- Keep and research the subject better. If there's people (like you ;-) ) who ask questions like that, then the article has at least some relevance. Comment: There are many links to the article. So if we can't keep, at least still redirect to prevent breaking links. Kim Bruning 08:59, 15 May 2004 (UTC)
- Why? What does one have to do with the other? Delete. RickK 06:13, 15 May 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. It seems a fairly well accepted term, much to my surprise, and is a good stub IMO. Andrewa 17:10, 15 May 2004 (UTC)
- The problem is that even though the term is being used in some documents searchable on Google, it has the smell of being "made up" to suggest there's some kind of grey area where there's not (and this is how some academic types pursue subjects in their drafting of papers). I submit that instead there are degrees of direct democracy, where some political mechanisms seek to mediate aspects of direct democracy to protect civil liberties. This is almost always the design of any direct democracy mechanism. Therefore, "semi-direct democracy" in no way expands upon the reality. This is why I support a redirect. A democratic system is either a kind of direct or a kind of indirect.
- Still redirect. However, I've added the following blurb to direct democracy to hopefully take any sting out of a redirect. In other words, this term "gets its props". I don't think that establishment should guarantee a term its own article, if the term is only a very minor extension of another term. -- Stevietheman 19:49, 15 May 2004 (UTC)
- Some political scholars use the term semi-direct democracy to describe direct democracy systems that are mediated in some way to protect civil liberties as well as protecting minority interests from majoritarianism. However, since direct democracy mechanisms are almost always mediated in this way, this term suggests a grey area where there is most likely none.
- Comment: With the merger being complete, if there is no objection, I'd like to go ahead and do the redirect. -- Stevietheman 16:21, 17 May 2004 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue should be placed on other relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.