Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Social insertion
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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 no consensus for deletion, default to keep. I'm disregarding the last comment for being, well, sloppy. Sandstein (talk) 21:19, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Social insertion
There's no proof for this topic's notability. I was unable to find anything on the internet to prove that this term has any significance as an anarchist topic. All websites that mention this term in such a context are minor anarchist sites. Carabinieri (talk) 15:08, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
- Note: This article has been listed as an Anarchism Task Force article for deletion. скоморохъ 20:17, 18 February 2008 (UTC))
- Delete: Movementarian stuff: fails notability for a non-profit, hasn't had political achievements. Utgard Loki (talk) 17:41, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
- First, social insertion is not unique to anarchism, so the article should be expanded to include other usage. I'm doing a little digging to see if I can find a good reference. If not, then I suggest merging it with one of the articles on South American anarchism. Social insertion is an extremely important trend in anarchism, but the actual adoption of the term is fairly new. Also, the nominator is incorrect in suggesting that all of the websites that mention the term are minor. A Google search brings up both NEFAC and IndyMedia, which are major websites relating to anarchism. And that's without looking into the Spanish-language material, which itself is substantial.Aelffin (talk) 18:20, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep My recent updates have vastly improved the article and I believe it should be kept, though possibly merged with Especifismo. Aelffin (talk) 19:00, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
-
- Comment. Those links you have added do not prove notability. They're all from anarchist websites and thus do not prove any real relevance.--Carabinieri (talk) 19:03, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
-
- Comment NEFAC, Alas Barricades, and Anarkismo are all respected sources in anarchism, and IndyMedia is not an anarchist website. Aelffin (talk) 19:09, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
-
- Anyone can post news on indymedia. It's far from being a reliable source. NEFAC, Alas Barricades, and Anarkismo may be important within the anarchist scene, but them mentioning this concept does not prove notability. They are not independent of the subject. Further, use of extremist sources as secondary sources is generally discouraged. See WP:N and WP:RS on what kind of sources are needed to prove notability.--Carabinieri (talk) 19:16, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comment, doing a really easy Google Book search, tons of stuff comes up using this term, if somebody feels like sourcing the article. Murderbike (talk) 19:27, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
- Most of those hits don't deal with the term as it's used by anarchists. If someone wants to write an article about this concept in general, I would welcome that, but this article is far from that. Looking at some of those books, this term appears to be just a synonym for social integration. --Carabinieri (talk) 19:30, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
- First of all, you're setting up a Catch-22 if you insist that the term must be used in an anarchist context while simultaneously insisting that anarchist websites are inherently biased. Second, how do you figure NEFAC, Alas Barricades, and Anarkismo are extremist? Aelffin (talk) 19:45, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
- First, what I am looking for is secondary sources. If this term was notable, there would be non-anarchist sources describing the anarchist ideology mentioning it. You can't write an article without secondary sources. Second, "'Extremism' is a term used to describe the actions or ideologies of individuals or groups outside the perceived political center of a society" is the definition used in the article about extremism. Anarchism quite clearly meets that definition.--Carabinieri (talk) 19:53, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
- You're mixing up popular perception of anarchism with actual anarchism. Wikipedia does not describe Anarchism as an extremist philosophy, and many of the huge number anarchist books, magazines, and other publications are considered quite reliable by Wikipedia standards--anarchism is radical, not (in most cases) extremist. Also, none of the citations in the social insertion article are affiliated with FARJ, the originator of the term, so they are clearly third-party sources. Aelffin (talk) 20:00, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
- Are you saying that anarchism is perceived to be part of the center of society? Come on! BTW, the anarchism article has a pretty long quote saying that anarchism is "Usually considered to be an extreme left-wing ideology". According to Merriam-Webster radicalism and extremism are synonyms. As to your claim that those sources are third-party: the author of the Alas Barricades article is a member of the Federación Anarquista de Rio de Janeiro, which according to the Especifismo article propounds this concept. The author of the NEFAC text obviously supports social insertion: he asks the question "how we approach the oppressed classes and how we contribute towards the advancement of their autonomy from political opportunism", giving social insertion as the answer. Finally, the anarkismo.net source is a declaration of principles calling for the application of the social insertion concept. How can you claim these websites are independent sources?--Carabinieri (talk) 20:20, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
- They may be proponents, but only one of them is actually affiliated with FARJ. That's like saying we can't quote Richard Feynman on physics because he is a physicist! We'd have to delete 99% of Wikipedia by that criterion. While some anarchists are extremists, most hold views compatible with the mainstream of society. The word extreme, the way it is used in the Merriam-Webster quote above simply means "far" not "extremist" and not everybody agrees with the M-W interpretation. Anarchism is considered by some to be the far left wing of the political spectrum, by others to be a form of libertarian socialism, and still others to be a general trend western history. Finally, only one of the four definitions of "radical" in Mirriam-Webster uses "extreme" as a synonym [1] and neither of the definitions of "radicalism" uses "extremism" as a synonym [2]. Aelffin (talk) 20:45, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
- Are you saying that anarchism is perceived to be part of the center of society? Come on! BTW, the anarchism article has a pretty long quote saying that anarchism is "Usually considered to be an extreme left-wing ideology". According to Merriam-Webster radicalism and extremism are synonyms. As to your claim that those sources are third-party: the author of the Alas Barricades article is a member of the Federación Anarquista de Rio de Janeiro, which according to the Especifismo article propounds this concept. The author of the NEFAC text obviously supports social insertion: he asks the question "how we approach the oppressed classes and how we contribute towards the advancement of their autonomy from political opportunism", giving social insertion as the answer. Finally, the anarkismo.net source is a declaration of principles calling for the application of the social insertion concept. How can you claim these websites are independent sources?--Carabinieri (talk) 20:20, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
- You're mixing up popular perception of anarchism with actual anarchism. Wikipedia does not describe Anarchism as an extremist philosophy, and many of the huge number anarchist books, magazines, and other publications are considered quite reliable by Wikipedia standards--anarchism is radical, not (in most cases) extremist. Also, none of the citations in the social insertion article are affiliated with FARJ, the originator of the term, so they are clearly third-party sources. Aelffin (talk) 20:00, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
- First, what I am looking for is secondary sources. If this term was notable, there would be non-anarchist sources describing the anarchist ideology mentioning it. You can't write an article without secondary sources. Second, "'Extremism' is a term used to describe the actions or ideologies of individuals or groups outside the perceived political center of a society" is the definition used in the article about extremism. Anarchism quite clearly meets that definition.--Carabinieri (talk) 19:53, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
- First of all, you're setting up a Catch-22 if you insist that the term must be used in an anarchist context while simultaneously insisting that anarchist websites are inherently biased. Second, how do you figure NEFAC, Alas Barricades, and Anarkismo are extremist? Aelffin (talk) 19:45, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
- Most of those hits don't deal with the term as it's used by anarchists. If someone wants to write an article about this concept in general, I would welcome that, but this article is far from that. Looking at some of those books, this term appears to be just a synonym for social integration. --Carabinieri (talk) 19:30, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
- That analogy is just plain wrong. Physics is a science, while anarchism is an ideology. Whether or not those authors are actually affiliated with the organization that invented the concept is irrelevant. They are simply writing about their ideology. Therefore, those aren't secondary sources. That's really simple. By your interpretation of the notability rules, anyone with access to the internet can publish a website about their ideology and then have a Wikipedia article about it. But that's not how Wikipedia works. You have cited no significant, third-party mentions of this concept. As it stands, this topic is not notable. How anarchists view themselves is irrelevant. Islamists usually don't think of themselves as extremists, but they still are.--Carabinieri (talk) 21:43, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
- Look, the article Anarchism doesn't define the ideology as "extremist", WP:N has nothing to say about "extremism" and WP:RS explicitly states that "extremist" sources may be used (with caution) in articles about themselves. In my opinion, your interpretation of anarchism is too narrow, and your interpretation of Wikipolicy is too loose. Aelffin (talk) 22:20, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
- I disagree quite strongly, but that's not the point. This article does not meet the notability criteria. That's the real issue at hand.--Carabinieri (talk) 22:33, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
- A Google search for "social insertion" and "anarchism" returns 584 results. A Google search for "inserción social" and "anarquismo" returns 926. A search for "social insertion" alone yields 17,800 results while "inserción social" gives 66,100. The term is clearly very common both inside and outside the anarchist milieu. Just because we haven't had time to sort through every website in both languages to find the best sources doesn't make the subject non-noteworthy. Aelffin (talk) 22:59, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
- Please read WP:GOOGLE and WP:GHITS on why that is not a valid argument.--Carabinieri (talk) 23:08, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
- WP:GOOGLE says that Google hits alone rarely establish notability, but that's not what I'm saying. I'm using Google to establish that it's a common subject, therefore may be of interest to Wikipedia readers. This, combined with its use in important, reliable anarchist websites I think establishes its notability within anarchism. WP:GHITS asserts that it is the quality of the hits that matters, which is exactly my point. Aelffin (talk) 23:38, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
- Please read WP:GOOGLE and WP:GHITS on why that is not a valid argument.--Carabinieri (talk) 23:08, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
- A Google search for "social insertion" and "anarchism" returns 584 results. A Google search for "inserción social" and "anarquismo" returns 926. A search for "social insertion" alone yields 17,800 results while "inserción social" gives 66,100. The term is clearly very common both inside and outside the anarchist milieu. Just because we haven't had time to sort through every website in both languages to find the best sources doesn't make the subject non-noteworthy. Aelffin (talk) 22:59, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
- I disagree quite strongly, but that's not the point. This article does not meet the notability criteria. That's the real issue at hand.--Carabinieri (talk) 22:33, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
- As for the Feynman analogy--it's your own argument that fails to distinguish between science and political movements. Your argument is that a source which is a proponent of a particular idea is disqualified for use as a source on the subject it propones. Wikipolicy doesn't say that, it says that a source should not be used to establish notability for itself. If I were trying to use the FARJ website to establish the notability of FARJ, that would be using a source to establish notability for itself. No matter what field we're talking about, an analogy puts us back in the same place: "John Stuart Mill cannot be used as a source on utilitarianism because he was a proponent of the utilitarian ideology." But clearly, as an expert on the subject, that makes him particularly qualified, doesn't it? Aelffin (talk) 23:55, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
- John Stuart Mill cannot be used to establish the notability of the article on utilitarianism. He can be used as a source, but he doesn't prove notability. Similarly you can use FARJ writings in the article about them, but they don't establish the group's notability, just as the articles by proponents of social insertion don't prove this topic's relevance. You just have to come up with independent sources. Anyone can write about their particular ideology and publish it on the internet, but Wikipedia requires more than that for there to be an article about this ideology. You said you haven't had the time to sort through the google hits to find good sources. I'd advise you to do just that. If you can find significant third-party mentions, I'd be more than happy to withdraw this AfD.--Carabinieri (talk) 13:15, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, anybody can publish on the internet and anybody can publish in a book or periodical. You don't need a special license or degree or any qualifications whatsoever to publish a book. I publish science textbooks for a living, and I can tell you that this idea that print media are somehow more legitimate than web-based publication is mistaken. One day in the editorial department of a major publishing house will teach you that. The way to establish a source's credibility is to look at its fact checking and vetting of information, not to simply say "well, it's the web so anybody could have written it" because the same is true of books. The one advantage the web has is that it's an open system, so you don't have to conform to peer pressure to publish, whereas the editorial process in most print media (especially periodicals) ensures that those published share ideological common ground with the editors. If anything, the web is more neutral. As for being independent, I explained above the difference between a source talking about itself and a source talking about something it is a proponent of. Aelffin (talk) 13:56, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
- John Stuart Mill cannot be used to establish the notability of the article on utilitarianism. He can be used as a source, but he doesn't prove notability. Similarly you can use FARJ writings in the article about them, but they don't establish the group's notability, just as the articles by proponents of social insertion don't prove this topic's relevance. You just have to come up with independent sources. Anyone can write about their particular ideology and publish it on the internet, but Wikipedia requires more than that for there to be an article about this ideology. You said you haven't had the time to sort through the google hits to find good sources. I'd advise you to do just that. If you can find significant third-party mentions, I'd be more than happy to withdraw this AfD.--Carabinieri (talk) 13:15, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
- Look, the article Anarchism doesn't define the ideology as "extremist", WP:N has nothing to say about "extremism" and WP:RS explicitly states that "extremist" sources may be used (with caution) in articles about themselves. In my opinion, your interpretation of anarchism is too narrow, and your interpretation of Wikipolicy is too loose. Aelffin (talk) 22:20, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep: Has been discussed by at least a few publications that are noteworthy within the anarchist movement, e.g. Northeastern Anarchist. I don't see that WP:N requires that something be taken note of outside of the specific area underwhich it falls; for instance, we have articles on philosophical concepts that have been discussed in philosophical journals or notable philosophical books, but have not been discussed outside of the community of philosophers. Likewise, that a term is notable within anarchism is enough notability for Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by VoluntarySlave (talk • contribs) 07:51, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
delete doesnt assert notability extremely sloppy —Preceding unsigned comment added by Boomgaylove (talk • contribs) 06:10, 20 February 2008 (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.
