Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Clerotarchy

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 of the debate was delete. howcheng {chat} 22:27, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] clerotarchy

See also Lottocracy (AfD discussion).

The article tells us that this is another name for lottocracy. If that were not original research itself, this would at best be a redirect there, given that it would be the same single concept. But as with "lottocracy", this is original research too. The article discusses the coinage of a made-up word for what is actually known as sortition. A redirect to either sortition or demarchy is inappropriate, because this word simply doesn't exist. A Google Web search, furthermore, turns up solely the web site of Ad van der Ven, the very Ad van der Ven (talk · contribs) who created this article. Uncle G 23:51, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as αρχίδια Segv11 ^{(talk/contribs)} 02:32, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, subject is a word someone made up, content is original research. - Bobet 05:17, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as unverifiable protologism. Also the Aristotle Book 4 link doesn't even mention it. (BTW, I don't get any Ghits?). —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-13 11:58Z

• Do NOT delete this contribution. It has been argued by Uncle G and Bobet, that lottocracy is original research. This is simply NOT true.

The idea of lottocracy has been described in detail in the chapter A Concept for Government of the book The World Solution for World Problems (ISBN 90-9002592-8). The book is officially published in 1988, which is, according to present standards, long ago. I cannot help it when the general public is not informed. Since the time of it's publication the book has been available, though, as a hard copy in the Library of Congress (Washington DC), the British Library (London) and, among others, in the Library of the University of Princeton (Princeton, USA). One can also find the book at PiCarta.

To Uncle G and Bobet: be a little more carefull next time and do not decide too fast. Respect the work (time and effort) of others and do not recommend deletion to easy. Suppose I would suggest so easily the delition of your contributions.

• Delete, as by nomination. And unsigned repetitive comments (by page creator?) won't help its cause much. Lukas 22:55, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

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.