Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Balance of power (federalism)

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 redirect to Federalism#Division of powers. Although there are reasonable arguments that this topic could merit a standalone article, there is clear consensus that the basic concept is covered at the proposed target, and that the material as it stands is not encyclopedic. As such there is currently a consensus to redirect, but this does not preclude a future article supported by good sources, particularly if the material gets too unwieldy at Federalism. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:20, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Balance of power (federalism)

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No refs on the page, written like a bad essay and needs WP:TNT

Also seems odd to me that there is a US navbox at the bottom of the page when the page doesn't mention the USA at all as far as I can tell JMWt (talk) 11:51, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. JMWt (talk) 11:51, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The topic is notable. The problem is that the article was created as a stub with no citations in 2007, and remains a not-much-larger stub with no citations today. Sources for improving the article can be found on Google books and Google scholar. That an article is a stub is not a valid reason for deletion.-- Toddy1 (talk) 14:10, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is a valid reason in that the page is bad and has been unreferenced since at least 2007. I have no doubt that one could find scholarly papers on the subject, but someone actually needs to do it and not leave an unreferenced bad university essay as a stub. WP:TNT JMWt (talk) 14:18, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree this reads as an essay that came from the top of someone's head. Federalism#Division_of_powers already covers the concept, though sadly also unsourced. The Google searches above can be helpful for that page. Reywas92^Talk 14:16, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That Federalism#Division_of_powers coverts a similar topic would justify making the page at Balance of power (federalism) a redirect.-- Toddy1 (talk) 15:14, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect Division of powers is conceptually inseparable from federalism. I agree with Terrance the James' 2012 comment on the article's talk page, and I think that this should simply be a redirect to the section on Federalism. The caveat here is that the section on that page faces the same lack of sourcing that this article does. If not kept as a redirect, I at least agree with the WP:TNT restart idea. Nmarshall25 (talk) 21:59, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Federalism#Division_of_powers. While it is true that the proposed target section has no inline references, it may be that some of the Federalism#Sources are relevant. One can put {{Unreferenced section}} on it now, and in 2039 if it is still uncited then delete both section and redirect. jnestorius^(talk) 23:53, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
See note below - they cover related material but this one is about the power dynamic rather than the institutions. Perhaps merging would be appropriate, but the division of powers section in Federalism is a bit of a rambling mess with no citations either.Oblivy (talk) 03:51, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - An older article that is hurt by new rules that seemingly were created to aide deletion. It's important information and deleting it does not make the site better.KatoKungLee (talk) 03:27, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a valid keep rationale. Deletion policies exist for a reason, and articles are not exempted simply because they were created before we realized that we needed to improve our standards. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 19:13, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve - This is not a crackpot theory and different from the discussion of Division of Powers which is discussed in the Federalism article (which focuses mainly on institutions rather than the balance of power). It needs some conceptual organization and copyediting. For my part, I added two citations which are quite on-point.Oblivy (talk) 03:48, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Article already exists as separation of powers. There doesn't appear to be anything in this article worth merging into that one. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 19:13, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strictly speaking, you are right there is nothing worth merging into separation of powers but that's because that article covers an unrelated topic (power sharing among institutions vs regions). As noted above there may be a rationale for merging into Federalism#Division_of_powers which covers (IMHO poorly) similar material.Oblivy (talk) 00:09, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The subject is notable, but it isn’t clear whether it rises to a level sufficient to justify a standalone article separate from the federalism article. It’s a challenging decision, because there are good policy-based arguments for deleting. On the other hand, there are also good policy-based arguments for keeping. Perhaps merging or simply redirecting to the relevant section in the federalism article would be options to consider? Shawn Teller (talk) 03:38, 10 March 2023 (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.