Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Panocracy (2nd nomination)

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. --Coredesat 03:13, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Panocracy

Panocracy (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

This article appears to violate WP:OR. It has no relaiable references. It returns zero hits on google scholar, which is suggestive, even if not a complete guide. User:John Talbot, who started the article, also seems to be the main person promoting the idea. For example, he wrote: "It is for this reason that I proposed some years ago the use of the word panocracy. Pan meaning everyone so panocracy is rule by everyone" on [1] on 2006-06-20 12:17, and seems to be the main author of the site promoting this idea [2]. Of course, I could be missing something, so I hope someoen with better knowledge of this field will examine this article. Anarchia 03:19, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

• comment this was deleted in the first AfD, speedy delete if this qualifies as CSD G4 (I can't view the old article, so I can't say) Pete.Hurd 04:58, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
• Not speedy G4 Looking at the previous article (from 2005) it was very much briefer, consisting of only the first paragraph of the present one. No comment at present on the merits. DGG (talk) 07:29, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
• Doubleunwiki for newwordy and original thoughtcrime The IngPanCrat has spoken. --Victor falk 09:24, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per above. How does "rule by all" even work? You wouldn't have anyone left to rule! --Agamemnon2 12:13, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Comrade Agamennon2, report for thoughtcrime. In Pancracy, everybody rules YOU!!--Victor falk 19:30, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

• in response to your question, see collectivist anarchism and related (perfectly notable) topics. Pete.Hurd 17:37, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

• Delete as lack of verificable sources suggests this a non-notable neogolism. --Gavin Collins 18:26, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
• delete per Gavin Collins Pete.Hurd 19:23, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

  No merge or redirect to Panarchy (or Panarchism, which ought to be merged with the former), the words are similar, but the meanings completely different, nor to Pantocracy (which ought to be deleted on the same grounds as this article). Pete.Hurd 01:18, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

  Did someone rename the Panocracy article to Pantocracy (no that can't be it, the articles have slight differences)? Why does the AfD template at the top of Pantocracy link to this AfD on Panocracy? Either way, both articles should share the same fate, as they don't differ in any substantial manner. Pete.Hurd 01:24, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

• Please, no jokes about pancreas or pinocchio. I think it would be "pantocracy", which is better than "democracy" because it's not limited to human beings. Mandsford 02:34, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
• Merge with Panarchy which seems to be a more established term for the same idea. Redirect to Pantocracy (which I have already created as a demonstration). I believe panocracy is no different than panarchy. Only one reference suggests that panarchy is talking about a single government, and so I changed that on the panarchy page so that that reference points to the new pantocracy page. I found several links, including Google groups which have material about 'panocracy', but I'm finding that Talbot seems to be the primary perpetrator of 'panocracy' in these forums. Panokratie (translated by at least someone as 'panocracy') is the name of a book apparently published in 1991 on the subject. I agree with Mandsford that the word here should be "pantocracy" instead of "panocracy", and I think both should redirect to the older "panarchy" I think that we should chose pantocracy because it turns up Google Scholar results. Additionally, I think Direct democracy (and less accurately Participatory democracy), Sociocracy and Collectivist anarchism are all different ways of enabling the Grandiose Concept of Pantocracy, and I think they should be immediately noted on any page about 'rule by all'. Jwiley80 21:05, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
• Doubleunwiki for newwordy and original thoughtcrime Merge with Panarchy Plusgood doublethink of Jwiley80 in blackwhiting panarchy with pancracy (now an unword). Panarchy has always been at war with Pancracy. IngPanCrat IngPanArch Victor falk 17:37, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Why 'merge' something that violates WP:OR? Anarchia 22:41, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Every single word of it is not OR, and merging parts of it would improve panarchy.--Victor falk 23:03, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

There is, from memory, one reference in the article. Surely it would be better to get information from a reliable source to include in panarchy, and then include the reference? Anarchia 01:05, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

• delete I don't think panocracy has any really reliable references except those that look like original research, possibly by the wikipedia editors?? Something which is not supposed to be done on wikipedia. So unless you can prove that it really is a philosophy known about in wider political circles, I agree it SHOULD be deleted. It should NOT be referred to in either panarchy or panarchism for that reason.Carol Moore 01:36, 11 October 2007 (UTC)User:Carolmooredc User talk:Carolmooredc

• delete pantocracy too. It doesn't have any external links at all! Just some editor's theory/original research. Carol Moore 01:57, 11 October 2007 (UTC)User:Carolmooredc User talk:Carolmooredc

• Comment Evidently what a few call "pantocracy" and "panocracy" is widely known as panarchy (39 resp 46 vs 203000 ghits). Nevertheless, they contain some information that could be included in "panarchy", hence a merger being more appropriate than a deletion. Don't flush the baby with the bath water.--Victor falk 02:13, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

• Reply to Comment. As I researched further down the search engines, I realized that pantocracy and panocracy have been described by a variety of people. The problem is NO ONE bothers to discuss those sources or link to them in either article. Therefore it's just someone's philosophy with a lot of wiki links. If someone wants to keep those articles in they should beef them up with real info, and not just opinions, ASAP.

Carol Moore 02:43, 11 October 2007 (UTC)User:Carolmooredc User talk:Carolmooredc

• Respectfully, I think you're missing what I'm saying. I mean that what's applicable to panarchy from pantocracy and panocracy should be merged into it.--Victor falk 02:49, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

• I don't have a problem with merging any sourced and accurate info. There is little credible in one article and none in the other. There IS such sourced info on pantocracy and panocracy on the web that could be added, if it is proved it is relevant. But you can't merge someone's original unsourced research and opinion on how all these things relate to each other. That's what it means when the articles are being deleted for violating WP:OR.

Carol Moore 03:40, 11 October 2007 (UTC)User:Carolmooredc User talk:Carolmooredc

• Keep until a suitable place to merge is found. The contents of the article describe a real phenomenon, a way of distributing power that is showing itself in different settings, and may possibly become a major trend. However, the word panocracy seems to be invented by John Talbut, and does not have widespread use. Thus, it is really the title that is the problem. We should look for somewhere else to put the contents; but as that is difficult to find, I say keep it as is for the time being. Merging with Panarchy is not a solution: that is something quite different. Rune Kock 20:12, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Again, wouldn't it make more sense to delete this unless WP:V is satisfied, which is not the case for material in this article derived from John Talbot's OR web pages? Anarchia 21:14, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree. It's a bad precedent to allow essentially all opinion articles to survive. People who want to keep the article should do the research and re-write it with sources! Unsourced opinion articles shouldn't be merged into sourced articles, thereby bringing down their quality. When does this get decided, anyway??

Carol Moore 22:22, 12 October 2007 (UTC)User:Carolmooredc User talk:Carolmooredc

• Delete I see no evidence whatever for general use of the term, or any importance. I am sometimes flexible about what I think can be considered not altogether OR, but this is unmistakable total OR, a purely personal unsourced essay on the subject. The article is more substantial than the previous version, which is why I said above it wasn' t a speedy for G4, but it still does not say anything encyclopedic. DGG (talk) 02:58, 14 October 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.