Talk:power structure
Latest comment: 10 years ago by TAKASUGI Shinji in topic power structure
RFD
[edit]
The following information passed a request for deletion.
This discussion is no longer live and is left here as an archive. Please do not modify this conversation, but feel free to discuss its conclusions.
Seems like power + structure to me. Mglovesfun (talk) 19:00, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
- Delete. --WikiTiki89 19:16, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
- The lemmings at “power structure”, in OneLook Dictionary Search. seem to think it worth having. For example, MW Online has two definitions:
- a group of persons having control of an organization: establishment
- the hierarchical interrelationships existing within a controlling group .
- I'll follow the crowd: Keep. DCDuring TALK 20:17, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
- The lemmings at “power structure”, in OneLook Dictionary Search. seem to think it worth having. For example, MW Online has two definitions:
- Keep. powerstructure is attested. [1] [2] [3] [4]. Cheers! bd2412 T 20:19, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
- Keep at least per WT:COALMINE and per OneLook dictionaries, so per DCDuring and bd2412. --Dan Polansky (talk) 21:36, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
- I'm questioning myself as well now. Mglovesfun (talk) 15:13, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
- Keep it. I think it's a unique term, and the "sum of parts" argument can be ridiculous sometimes, and overused. Donnanz 18:17, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
- I think it's a fundamentally good argument, just no argument is good when it's used in the wrong context. Mglovesfun (talk) 18:22, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
- Keep as common collocation. Also in the OED. Ƿidsiþ 18:46, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
- Comment Are we ready to close this? Ringbang (talk) 23:13, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
Kept. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 00:46, 6 January 2014 (UTC)