Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anarcho-capitalism and minarchism

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. Cirt (talk) 04:53, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anarcho-capitalism and minarchism

Fails WP:OR by being a "synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position". This page was created by an anarcho-capitalist and seems to be intended to promote anarcho-capitalism over minarchism. The bias is small, but is slightly more visible in the original version of the article (I removed an unverifiable biased part). Ignoring the bias, most of the content is verifiable, being backed by an article on a sufficiently respectable anarchist website. However, even a neutral version of this synthesis would have little content, value and interest/notability. Chealer (talk) 03:37, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. —--Bsnowball (talk) 11:18, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete & redirect although lack of neutrality is not a reason for deletion, the very real debate which the article deals with is a non-notable argument amongst a very small group of people & is better dealt with as a section in Anarcho-capitalism or similar.--Bsnowball (talk) 11:18, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could you explain please, Bsnowball, how you judge the sources in the article (at this time or at the time of your comment) not to satisfy the general notability guideline? Or, if you are using some other yardstick, could you explain what it is and how this topic fails it? I would appreciate it. Thanks, the skomorokh 20:32, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been listed as an Anarchism task force deletion discussion.

Keep This is not to be deleted for lack of neutrality, and while a small issue, it is reasonably covered by several sources throughout it. I see nine sources, with a total of fifteen citations, within three reasonably sized paragraphs, and includes a list of further reading. It may be a small debate, but it is apparently notable within the field. It sees a very small amount of traffic, but to help that it has been connected to a larger series of anarcho-capitalist articles with a footer navigation bar. Anyone researching the subject should be able to find it through this system. I see nothing wrong with this article that can't be improved, and while it may never be a featured article, it could achieve GA status.--Cast (talk) 14:54, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I see Skomorokh has been active in retrieving sources for the article. I applaud his effort, and encourage the nominator to take greater care not to bring notable articles before AfD in the future. --Cast (talk) 14:58, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Libertarianism as that article has a somewhat different set of classifications which we should endeavour to bring together rather than forking. Colonel Warden (talk) 16:49, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It would seem highly inappropriate to merge an article on anarcho-capitalism and minarchism with Libertarianism. Now merging the content into Anarcho-Capitalism or Minarchism would be understandable, but still unwise. If the subject is notably discussed, it can have it's own article and be properly forked if the subject matter can form its own page. Skomorokh has steadily revealed that there are plenty of sources for this to be an independent page. Merging it into a third subject would seem nonsensical. How are a set of "different classifications" a justification for such a merge? I'm not following.--Cast (talk) 20:35, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The first sentence of this article is currently: "Anarcho-capitalism and minarchism are the two distinct strains of libertarianism". The article Libertarianism breaks it down into 9 different viewpoints. These are competing analyses. Best to have it all in one place so that the reader gets the full picture. Colonel Warden (talk) 20:50, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Of the view points listed, only two are of interest to this article. At one paragraph each, wouldn't it be easier to repeat these two entries on this article, rather than merging the whole of this article, and whatever may be added to it in the future, to that one? Further, your suggestion is that the relationship between these two viewpoints should be merged into Libertarianism is tantamount to suggesting that the "Issues in anarchism" article should be added to the main "Anarchism" page. It would create a Libertarianism article with undue weight given to a discussion among two of its offshoots. I feel the relationship can be summarized on Libertarianism, but it shouldn't be completely merged. --Cast (talk) 00:57, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, Colonel, by the claim that A-C and Min are "the two strains of libertarianism" I think the source should be interpreted to mean "A-C and Min are two camps into which all libertarians may be divided" rather than "A-C and Min are the only 2 types of libertarianism". You could just as easily divide libertarians by their justification; deontological or consequentialist.

Regarding your !vote, this topic is one which is very well suited to being merged, as it is a debate internal to libertarianism. However, if you examine the sources, I'm sure you will agree with me that there is more than enough referencable content to write a long and complete article on this topic itself. Sincerely, the skomorokh 20:32, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

divide or delete. Per the article itself " the two distinct strains of libertarianism"; as such, if they warrant an article separate from the main subject, and I think they do, they should be separate. I leave it to the experts whether this is unduly selective, not including equally important other ones, it which case it's a content fork. and more than 2 articles should be created. But the existing combination article cannot standDGG (talk) 19:12, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry David, but I don't understand this comment at all. We already have a featured article on the highly notable anarcho-capitalism as well as a less-developed article on minarchism. This article is part of an article series on Category:Issues in anarchism; see for comparison anarchism and anarcho-capitalism, anarchism and capitalism and anarchism and Marxism. If you read the references in the article, it will be clear to you that the anarchism-minarchism debate within libertarianism is long-running, prominent and notable beyond question, not only among the literati, but also as the core principle ideological debate within the third largest political party in the most powerful nation in the world. There is enough significant coverage of the relationship of these two doctrines to fulfill the WP:GNG dozens of times over, already referenced in the article. Could you please clarify your position? Regards, the skomorokh 20:32, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per Cast. All the other issues seems to be WP:Problems that should be addressed through regular editing. Constructive suggestions in these fields are helpful but I don't see a compelling reason to delete as much as fix. To be clear, if synthesis is a concern then lean on what sources comparing or discussing the two state; it may be that this needs to encompass more subfield to remain NPOV. -- Banjeboi 23:33, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. I honestly don't know where to begin. The fact that an article like this would be nominated for deletion at all and the apparent absence of any effort or desire to research the topic by those favoring deletion make this one of the most disheartening episodes I've experienced on Wikipedia in a long time. The inclusion criteria for a topic in Wikipedia is the notability threshold, by convention. That threshold is passed, and an article on a topic deemed appropriate, if there is significant coverage of the topic in multiple independent reliable sources. The topic of this article is the relationship between the twin philosophies of minarchism and anarcho-capitalism. When this article was proposed for deletion, it referenced the book Anarchism/Minarchism, a full-length examination of the topic edited by two highly-respected academic scholars of libertarianism, Tibor Machan and Roderick Long. I have since added several more references, as well as direct links to the Libertarianism entries in the authoritative online encyclopaediae Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy and Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. I suggest you pause and take a few minutes to read the latter: [1] [2]. Yes, the article was created by an indefinitely blocked sockmaster, who may have had ulterior motive related to this, was originally a WP:COATRACK, and it is a lamentably cursory treatment of the subject. Yet WP:PROBLEMS with the content of articles unrelated to notability can be overcome, and are irrelevant to question of deletion. I ask in all seriousness, why are we even discussing this? the skomorokh 20:32, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Skomorokh and Cast. The significance of the issues being addressed in the article, and the woefully inadequate deletion arguments provided, have been well illustrated by the skomorokh. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 16:28, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.