RationalWiki:Articles for deletion/Category:Capitalists

Category:Capitalists | Result: Bankrupted

Category:Capitalists (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Delete

1. He was told by everyone he asked that creating this was a bad idea, but he did it anyway. Basically, "capitalists" is so broad it could apply to almost everyone who has an article on the wiki, it could mean ideological capitalists, anyone who doesn't explicitly oppose capitalism, or anyone who is part of a capitalist society regardless of their views. Furthermore, there is a considerable difference between free-market absolutists and those who prefer regulated economies. Finally, I feel like categories such as "conservatives" and "liberals" are better for conveying this concept. This category is too broad, poorly defined, and redundant to the point if being useless, so it should be deleted. Plutocow (talk) 00:46, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
2. The category can be applied so widely that it becomes useless. I can’t see any good reason why we should pollute the taxonomy here with this one. —cosmikdebris ^talk stalk 01:09, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
3. I competely agree with Plutocow and Cosmikdebris. Spud (talk) 01:26, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
4. Delete. Bongolian (talk) 01:57, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
5. Too broad and can apply to anyone ←§ Edward the eight (talk) 10:47, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
6. I agree it's too broad, seems both vague and ambiguous, not very informative, seems like it would perhaps only really serve the purpose of labelling "people anti-capitalists don't like", in which I don't currently see the usefulness. I think other categories can (already) better cover whatever this one might. I agree with Plutocow and Cosmicdebris.ConverginglyRational (talk) 11:12, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
7. Have to agree with with Cosmikdebris that this is a very broad and thus quite useless category. For those rich people that are interesting for this wiki, say, because they fund various nefarious and/or bullshit causes, there are other options already available (most prominently, “enablers”). While far from being some kind of Beltway libertarian, I don’t see why being “a capitalist” in and of itself(!) is of interest to the purpose of RW. ScepticWombat (talk) 18:41, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

Merge/redirect

1. As I argued at the Bar, there might be some merit in having this as 'Category: Vulgar Libertarians' as most of that the OP appeared to be aiming at under 'capitalist' generally appears to be variants of this 'screw you, I've got mine' mentality/ideology. Which I do think is RW-missional, as a lot of their justification is pseudo-economic in origin. KarmaPolice (talk) 12:08, 18 June 2023 (UTC)