Talk:power structure

RFD

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.

---

power structure

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:

1. a group of persons having control of an organization: establishment
2. the hierarchical interrelationships existing within a controlling group .

I'll follow the crowd: Keep. DCDuring TALK 20:17, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

• 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)