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The result was Nomination Withdrawn. Non-admin closure. DARTH PANDA ^duel 22:05, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Income redistribution[edit]

I fee that this article is rather overwhelmingly in favour of the US Republican party. It's not very well sourced, and 'Income Redistribution' has never been a political policy. I think the word the writer was looking for was socialism, or a social care system at any rate. Full of phrases like "one could argue that" and other unsourced arguments one way or another, this article needs to be at best stubbified. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 23:08, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Per the below comments, I'd like to withdraw my nomination, but point out that the article is pretty heavily biased and unsourced. If someone has an interest in it, could they have a look, otherwise I'll be removing the unsourced statements in course. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 16:23, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. It may be biased, but that does not mean it's not an incredibly important topic. Just needs some cleanup. P.S.: putting ((fact)) after every sentence doesn't help! Bsimmons666 (talk) ^Friend? 00:03, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FYI: I didn't put the fact tags there ;-) Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 12:06, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- VG ☎ 00:44, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Redistribution of wealth. Title and content seem like a spinout from that article. MuZemike (talk) 01:49, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I dunno - I kinda disagree with that. Income redistribution is transferring income from high earners to low earners (such as taxing the rich more than the poor but spending more on the poor than the rich) but Wealth redistribution is a more long-term process aimed at transferring wealth from the wealthy to the poor. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 07:40, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - If the article is biased, remove the bias. If it's not sourced, find sources. If it makes erroneous statements, remove those statements. But income redistribution is a very notable concept everywhere (not just the US). Zain Ebrahim (talk) 07:40, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Does the nominator really believe that income redistribution has never been a political policy? I think you'll find that in one form or another it has been a political policy in most of the world for the last century or two. Obviously a notable subject. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:47, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - a notable concept. Personal political leanings are not a reason to delete --T-rex 16:13, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I vote conservative: my personal political leanings are not in question here! Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 16:24, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Still not a reason to delete --T-rex 21:39, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the article and clean it up!--Paul McDonald (talk) 18:43, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I've started cleanup, by removing unsourced opinions, and some intrinsically biased see alsos and categories. . The article as nominated was a drastic violation of NPOV, but that can be fixed--the only problem will be to avoid biasing it too much the other way. Those working on it further might want t try consulting the French and German articles for alternate treatments. DGG (talk) 20:25, 3 November 2008 (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.