Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Bottom-up democracy

message: I've made earlier criticisms on the Talk:Bottom-up democracy page on previous versions of this article; I'd also point out that the Top-down democracy article is even more of a candidate for deletion.  The various versions of this article are quite disjointed and poorly written, but aside from that, I suspect that there is an attempt to shoe-horn multiple concepts into this article, some of which don't fit:
1) the use of the term in broader "grassroots" sorts of contexts - I think this is what many of the google hits may be.  People use this phrase in a variety of contexts, mainly in the sense of "grassroots activism" within an existing system, or a concern with local issues, etc.  Each use is slightly different, and usually doesn't refer to a specific "chain of representatives" government structure.  Most of the Chomsky references seem to be a variation on this - Chomsky criticizes the United States for trying to impose democracy in Iraq from the "top down", as opposed to letting it develop from the "bottom up", or for opposing Chavez in Venezuela.  Just because someone uses the phrase "bottom-up" doesn't mean they are referring to some specific "chain of representatives" concept.  A general paragraph or two illustrating the various ways the phrase is used might be useful.
2) the council communism or Workers' council  concepts - these are legit articles, but there is no evidence that "bottom-up democracy" is in any sort of general use as a term to describe them.  Ditto for the anarchist citations.  
3) any theoretical proposals that User:Skovoroda may have been thinking of in his original draft.  Presumably this may have been the original intent of this article.  If there are notable theories of this sort, they should have an article entry themselves, and if "bottom-up democracy" is in use to describe them, then they can be linked from this article.  So far this isn't the case - the closest is the (indirect) link in recent drafts to a proposal by Fred_E._Foldvary entitled "Cellular Bottom-Up Multi-Level Governance", which does in fact describe this sort of "chain of representatives" structure.  I have no idea how notable this (or similar) theories might be, but I would suggest those interested begin by writing articles on them, as opposed to trying to salvage the current chimera that is the "bottom-up democracy" article. - David Oberst 04:57, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

message: *** (1) A substatial rewrite has been made, incorporating your ideas. 
(2) If "bottom-up democracy" is not deleted, then the contrasting "top-down democracy" should not be deleted. But if the "bottom-up democracy" concept is deleted, the "top-down democracy" should also be deleted. One concept is defined in terms of the negation of the other.
Skovoroda 15:34, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Did you examine all 23, 700 entries for "delegative democracy"? or are you guessing?Skovoroda 03:20, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Debate moved from project page

message: In democracy (varieties) the division of Democracy is between, on the one hand, Direct and Indirect. Indirect is divided into Representative and Delegative. On the other hand, Democracy is divided into Direct and Representative. In that case, Representative should be divided into Delegative and Non-Delegative. I left a note to this effect at its discussion cite.
When I clicked on Delegative Democracy, there was nothing; so I created the entry.  It seems to me that what people are calling "bottom-up democracy" is equivalent to "delegative democracy." And what people are calling "top-down democracy" is equivalent to "non-delegative representational democracy."  David Oberst, I suspect, does not want Representationa Democracy to be divided into "bottom-up" and "top-down," but will he concede that it should be divided into Delegative and Non-Delegative?
He has conceded that the "bottom-up"/"top-down" distinction is useful in some contexts -- but because it is not widely used, it should not be introduced into the main divisions of Democracy. This is why he is, I think, fighting this distinction.  I will concede to him if he recognizes either of the above two division which include Delegative Democracy.  I will not try to substitute "bottom-up democracy" for "delegative democracy" as long as he does give "delegative democracy" a recognition in the divisions of Democracy. 
Finally, there is no good reason to delete the "bottom-up democracy" entry.
Skovoroda 15:29, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Did you examine all 23, 700 entries for "delegative democracy"? or are you guessing?Skovoroda 03:20, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Consistency?

message: The phrase "delegative democracy" has 23,700 entries on Google.  It may, in some instances, be used as equivalent to "representative democracy" but in many of the instances I have examined it seems to be equivalent to "bottom-up democracy."  
In such a case, one writes: The phrase "delegative democracy" is ambiguous: in one sense it means the same as "representative democracy"; in another, what is expressed in the "bottom-up democracy."
In addition, the existing bottom-up democracy is not mixture of different things  but of instances of a common species.  
Skovoroda 03:20, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for pointing this out -- let's recognize his usage, but scrap it as irrelevant to the sense being focused on. See delegative democracy. Skovoroda 14:37, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Delegative Democracy

message: My proposal is that Democracy be divided into Direct and Indirect. Indirect divided into Representative (=top-down) and Delegative (=bottom-up).
The other alternative is that Indirect Democracy be divided into Representative Democracy and Soviet Democracy.  
Or, can someone tell me where Soviet Democracy fits in their Dicotemous Hierarchies?Skovoroda 04:35, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Possible Divisions of Democracy