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 (non-admin closure) per lack of delete preferences. Issue of merging/redirecting left to editors of the article/talkpage. Skomorokh 00:26, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Socialist Republic[edit]

Socialist Republic (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Rejected speedy, procedural nom, I'm neutal. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 21:50, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and expand. Redirect to socialist state. Clearly this is part of a series of article per the link box on the article page. It's a stub right now, but could be expanded. I considered suggesting a redirect to socialism but that's a discussion of the political/social philosophy, whereas "socialist republic" is a form of government. I'm actually surprised that a lengthier article on this topic hasn't been written. Could there already be another article under another name? Changed vote: I'm good with redirecting to the socialist state article, however if this is done please don't forget to change the link box to reflect this. Alternately, JeremyMcCrackin's suggestion to move the contents of "Socialist state" to this article works for me, as well. 23skidoo (talk) 13:01, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and expand. 23skidoo's thinking is exactly what I was thinking, including being surprised that there isn't already such an article. I searched but couldn't find anything except a list of socialist republics. Sbowers3 (talk) 22:16, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and expand per above; widely used term, should easily be the subject of multiple reliable sources. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 22:31, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• This already exists as socialist state, so I say merge. It's possible that socialist republic would be a better title for that article. --Dhartung | Talk 22:40, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Given the general definition of “socialism”, it is possible to have believe in non-republican socialist states, as for example when a leader is believed to be able to channel the underlying will of the community. —SlamDiego_←T 03:47, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect without prejudice (to “Socialist state”). This article has spent more than 2 years going nowhere. If a subsection of “Socialist state” grows to article-worthy proportion, or someone generates a separate article of greater substance, then change the redirect back to a semi-autonomous article. —SlamDiego_←T 02:00, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with socialist state The Alan Smithee (talk) 02:57, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Socialist state. Per WP:NOR Yahel Guhan 05:10, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to socialist state. csloat (talk) 05:31, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to socialist state. Identical topic. --Soman (talk) 06:04, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. —Yahel Guhan 05:17, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and move Socialist state here; there's an article named Capitalist republic that appears to be in the same realm; I think keeping the names similar would make good sense. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 11:42, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong merge Article certainly has potential, but has been neglected for a long time. Being merged with Socialist State (per SlamDeigo comment) would allow it to be developed further and possibly split at a future date Rotovia (talk) 12:53, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to socialist state per many above. Given the nature of socialism, all socialist states necessarily fall under the broad category of republics, at least in theory. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:01, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: In whose theory? If we simply examine the original definition of “socialism” (in reference to political and economic systems), non-republican rule is not excluded. The article “Socialist state” should certainly not ignore non-republican socialist systems, and would be possible to have a separate article focussed on republican socialism. However, the present “Socialist Republic” doesn't have enough content to merit standing separately. —SlamDiego_←T 19:17, 3 April 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.