Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anarcho-Monarchism

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 was DELETE. -Doc^g 00:28, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Anarcho-Monarchism

Anarcho-Monarchism (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Non-notable term with little or no contemporary usage. Only identified usages are two individuals and appear not to be connected; also term does not appear to have been a major part of either one's work. Black Butterfly 12:02, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

• Keep! - This article shall not be deleted. The concept of anarcho-monarchism may be rather obscure, I agree, but it's interesting enough to warrant keeping the article. One should note that the content of the article, including references, has been significantly expanded (by various editors) since the first deletion template was added one week ago. LHOON 12:40, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment the "expansion" in question consisted of providing references for those things which had already been mentioned. subjective ideas of what is "interesting" do not qualify as arguments. --Black Butterfly 13:04, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, WP:NEO, WP:V. Terence Ong 12:52, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, article claims that Anarcho-Monarchism is a political philosophy, but it doesn't appear to be one. A couple of mentions-in-passing by people who are best known for entirely different things do not alter this. Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 13:34, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per Squiddy, not to mention it's a neologism, apparently Dali himself didn't use the term. Krimpet 14:21, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, ditto to Squiddy. --Black Butterfly 15:32, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep I don't understand the impulsion to delete articles on Wikipedia just because it's hard to find information on the subject. As long as it's mentioned somewhere in sources why not have an article? It's not like we're running out of drive space.Anarcho-capitalism 17:35, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment Well said! This article should be a keep indeed, and not be sacrificed to overzealous deletionism! LHOON 20:16, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with "overzealous deletionism." Because the topic of the article has not "been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works from sources that are reliable and independent of the subject itself and of each other" (see WP:NOTE), it must be deleted. -- WGee 22:38, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete WP:NEO, WP:V, WP:WING, etc. Avi 17:50, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete I saw this article a few days ago and wondered what its point was then. Just because Dali considered himself one doesn't mean it should have an article. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 18:02, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete For all reasons previously stated, plus this is a recreation of a page that was deleted months ago (at my request no less). Here is the archived discussion. I think the only difference between the articles is that "monarchism" is capitalized in the title of this new one. Ungovernable Force^{Poll: Which religious text should I read?} 04:53, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment: this article was created before and later deleted. Discussion

• Delete As per all of the above. Blockader 16:47, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep There is more here than just a neologism and Dali. I am not an expert here but this seems to a part of the far-right that is mirror maze reflecting and distorting the left. The principal cite is an article by Wayne John Sturgeon, a major contributor of Alternative Green. He has contributed important articles on Patrick Harrington a former Leader of the National Front, among other far-right figures. This article is notable not because it's "interesting" but because it can explain, in part, a world in which Kadfhi, the IRA, and anti-globalist may at times act in concert. Sources can be developed for this article which needs to be improved.Edivorce 01:24, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment This page is actually a candidate for speedy deletion under CSD G4, recreation of deleted material. I was thinking of adding a speedy delete tag to the article, but I thought since the discussion was taking place I would just mention this here. Ungovernable Force^{Poll: Which religious text should I read?} 05:34, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

• Deletion of recreated material under CSD-G4 requires that the article be identical or "substantially identical" to the previously deleted article. This article has undergone 40 edit versions since recreation. It is no longer possible that it is "identical." Edivorce 15:57, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Can we stop with the resurrections already? --William Gillis 07:01, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment There is nothing wrong with resurrections if they constitute an improvement. The article still has room for improvement, and can be further expanded as stated by Edivorce, and become a source of interesting background information. Speedy deletion is certainly NOT an option, nor is deletion for the sake of deletion as proposed by some of the more zealous deletionists. Please give this article a chance to grow and further develop. LHOON 09:33, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it's not an improvement. I just looked at the history, and the original "resurrection" was actually much worse than the original article and was clearly not a recreation, but another attempt to create an article on the subject. The revisions that have taken place since than have made it closer to the old article. I think it would be helpful if an admin can look at the old version before it was deleted and compare it to the current version, and tell us what they think. It's been a while since I saw the old one and my memory is fuzzy, but I'm pretty sure the intro is the same. Ungovernable Force^{Poll: Which religious text should I read?} 19:16, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. Didn't we go through this one before? Owen 21:25, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment Indeed, but see the arguments above! There is room for improvement and for not deleting just now. LHOON 21:33, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

• I'm weighing in with a delete. I don't like deleting articles (apart from a few I've nominated myself for blatant violation of WP:NEO), but this article doesn't seem to have a coherent subject. A few people used the term or a variation of it, without defining it, and sometimes as a joke. Not enough material to build an article. ~Switch ^t 05:00, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
• Merge into Salvador Dali's Politics-section, most of the article refers to his political opinion. C mon 10:35, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment in this case, make the article a redirect to this session? LHOON 16:20, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Merging is fine. Ungovernable Force^{Poll: Which religious text should I read?} 19:33, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

If this article is only about an off handed comment of Dali it should not exist at all. Better to delete and permit someone willing to seriously treat article to resurrect than redirect to Dali. Note: I am not endorsing delete. I still believe the article should be kept and improved. Edivorce 20:07, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, not an existing movement. Just cause Dali claims a certain identity that doesn't make it an ideology of its own. --Soman 10:27, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, because there is no such political philosophy as "anarcho-monarchism." The term itself is original research (even if it is derived from monarchist-anarchist); plus, the subject clearly fails to meet the standards of WP:NOTE, as evidenced by the lack of reliable secondary sources that use the term. -- WGee 22:15, 6 February 2007 (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.