Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Neofeudalism

Someone seems to be ripping off some obscure tracts, relegated to a fringe even among Marxist circles (and not even doing a good job at that). This is nothing more than a slogan used by a handful of neo-Marxists, albeit with a glimmer of notoriety, in their polemics in recent years, such as those of YS Brenner, arguing that deregulation is bolstering capital's power vis-à-vis labor, and setting the stage for capitalism's drift back toward "neofeudalism." Delete or redirect to a stub about one of the exponents of this term. 172 08:26, 10 May 2004 (UTC)

Keep, without question. It's a real concept, and, yes, it's really happening. Mike Church 10:27, 10 May 2004 (UTC)
Keep - David Gerard 11:38, May 10, 2004 (UTC)
No vote yet, lean towards delete. This returns only 128 hits on google. Is this term famous enough? If not, the information should go into another article. Andris 14:40, May 10, 2004 (UTC)
- I've heard it outside Wikipedia. The article needs NPOV, but that's a large article to try to merge into another ... it'd be likely to get separated out again - David Gerard 15:01, May 10, 2004 (UTC)
  - Can you give sources where it's used? The article is very short on those. I am open to being convinced that it should be kept but I would like to hear who invented this term, etc. Andris 17:45, May 10, 2004 (UTC)
    - Leftists talking rubbish on the net, usually. But it is out there - David Gerard 22:39, May 10, 2004 (UTC)
    - If the authors are able to find some of the sources (and BTW, I helped them out by citing one when I'd first added the article to VFD), the article should be redirected to the name of a key author articulating this concept (e.g., YS Brenner), which can include an overview of the author's work. But right now, this wouldn't even get a passing grade as a high schooler's essay, let alone constitute an encyclopedic entry, given that it is not even citing its sources and giving the slightest bit of indication that it is not dreamt up by a couple of Wikipedia users. 172 20:50, 10 May 2004 (UTC)
      - It wasn't "dreamt up by a couple of Wikipedia users," and the term isn't owned by a single author. It's an easily-comprehensible neologism so has taken root in people's blog blatherings and (IIRC) the less comprehensible parts of academia of its own accord - David Gerard 22:39, May 10, 2004 (UTC)
        If you had read my postings before mouthing off, you'd see that I was the first user (and perhaps still the sole user) to even cite the name of an author articulating this concept. I said that since it wasn't citing its sources at the time, it could give people that impression, not that it was a valid impression. 172 02:21, 11 May 2004 (UTC)
Keep - it's heard and seen fairly often in the anti-globalization camp. Smerdis of Tlön 16:29, 10 May 2004 (UTC)
- So, just to understand the consequences of your argument, what's the difference between the propaganda of the "anti-globalization camp" and an entry in an encyclopedia? For example, do you favor turning this rant by crackpots who ostensibly take an 'anti-globalization' line into an encyclopedia article? 172 20:50, 10 May 2004 (UTC)
Keep - while not very NPOV, it is a good topic, and yes as is said earlier often espoused in the anti-globalization camp. Maybe this page can be added to pages needing att. Burgundavia 17:02, 10 May 2004 (UTC)
Keep - Just because you think the categories in which other people analyse the world are rubbish doesn't mean you have a right to ban them from using them. Hence a Wikipedia entry is justified, although the article is pretty bad at the moment. Most of all it needs to be put in the context of the people who use this term. pir 17:10, 10 May 2004 (UTC)
Keep - The audacity of some people. This is a legitimate and academic term of conceptual value and significance. It is not POV, anymore than the term "conservative" or "liberal" is POV. Perhaps some people don't like to be called it? Polls show that people who, by measure of their values and policy preferences, are liberals, don't like to be called liberals. That doesn't make their values and policiy preferences not liberal. And it doesn't make "liberal" an illegitimate term.
- Then what's the difference between (a) a polemic and an encyclopedic entry (b) a personal essay and an encyclopedic entry (c) a propaganda tract and an encyclopedic entry (d) a more-or-less credible academic dissertation and an encyclopedic entry, etc.? I'm not saying that this concept doesn't warrant mentioning anywhere on Wikipedia, but that it should be brought up instead in articles about the people/groups who use this term. Encyclopedias do not give a separate page to people seeking to selling this POV without even bothering to let readers know the source (and incidentally, whether or not the article's contents even adequately sum up what these sources are saying about 'neofeudalism'). 172 20:50, 10 May 2004 (UTC)
- Yo, relax "unsigned commentator". You'll see that most people here have voted to keep it. Sheesh. BTW, I do too, but I also happen to agree with the gist of 172's assessment and I question its neutrality. -- Alcarillo 19:53, 10 May 2004 (UTC)
- Comment: Wow, quite a battle shaping up here, lots of skirmishes. IMO it would be no loss to delete this, the chance of NPOV seems to be remote at present. But agree deletion seems unlikely. No vote, just some advice:
  - Unsigned votes don't count. Waste of time, even possibly counterproductive.
  - Votes of users with good edit histories carry more weight. Do some work. I think both political poles encourage (;-> work, and this article still needs some.
  - But first read the policy on NPOV, and note that it is described as non-negotiable.
  - Examine yourself, and if you're not honestly wanting this article to be NPOV, find another to work on. Others will fix this one. Andrewa 20:31, 10 May 2004 (UTC)

- I've worked up a NPOV stub that could be a good starting point; I invite comment on it. The Scratch Pad. Alcarillo 21:45, 10 May 2004 (UTC)
  - I like it. As you'll see by me having tried some edits on it ;-) Needs more before replacing the present article IMO, but would certainly beat deleting it altogether - David Gerard 22:39, May 10, 2004 (UTC)
No vote, grudgingly lean toward keep, provided we switch to the scratch pad version (thanks, Alcarillo). It really should have more specific information on who exactly (names) uses the term where. - Nat Kraus e 02:03, 11 May 2004 (UTC)
This is a horrible article, but if this is a real term (and I really don't know), we can have a write-up on it. I've done some work on the beginning of the article myself working towards this goal. The scratch pad version I think could be the basis for a much more comprehensive fix. -- V V 06:45, 11 May 2004 (UTC)