Talk:Advanced capitalism

Redirect to Capitalism section?

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of this discussion was keep. (non-admin closure) --IJBall (talk) 06:23, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

---

Should be article be redirected to Capitalism#Advanced capitalism?Jonpatterns (talk) 14:58, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes, for God's sake. It's nothing more than a biassed, unreliable, opinion piece. Hendrick 99 (talk) 09:52, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Then why not use WP:MERGEPROP, as it is an non trivial merge/redirect ? Jonpatterns (talk) 10:06, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

• Move to delete I would sugegst deleting the whole mess, it's not worthy of being in Wikipedia as it's mere opinion. Damotclese (talk) 17:42, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Its a theory put forward by notable academics.Jonpatterns (talk) 10:36, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

• If academics can be shown to have written about it a way that other, non-partisan academics acknowledge is illuminating, then of course it should not be deleted. (If OTOH the writing merely serves to mystify or render obscure, then there'd have to be some additional reason for keeping the article, such as press coverage.) ¶ Some rewriting would help. Simple examples: (1) [T]he situation that pertains in a society: "the state of a society"? "the economy of a society"? "the state of an economy"? [F]or a prolonged period: "for a long time"? (But how long?) (3) [H]istorical previous forms: "earlier forms"? ¶ The article cites Habermas, and refers the reader to "Habermas, 1988"; but it does not indicate what/where this is; or whether/how this is related to something very oddly described as "Habermas, J. [1973] Legitimation Crisis" (whose title is linked to an article not on a book or paper but instead on a concept). ¶ Actually the whole bibliography (which makes up a non-trivial percentage of this short article) is a mystery. ¶ Really, whoever thinks that this article is worthwhile should put a bit more effort into it. -- Hoary (talk) 00:41, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
• Keep Has citations, no reason to move. Darx9url (talk) 01:24, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
• Keep: notable-enough topic for a standalone article. The article needs expansion and fixing, though. Esquivalience ^t 02:57, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
• Keep - Personally with the amount of sources here it seems fine to have it as a separate article. –Davey2010^Talk 15:33, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
• Keep per Esquivalience <> Alt lys er svunnet hen (talk) 23:57, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.