Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Abolition of Work

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 keep. — Cirt (talk) 20:18, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Abolition of Work[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I see no evidence that the essay is important; I doubt it is even important enough for a redirect to the author . It was apparent listed for the old VfD process in 2003, but I cannot located the discussion. DGG ( talk ) 20:46, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DGG, there's a fair amount of hits in Google Books. I don't have the gumption for overhauling the essay (I've abolished real work for tonight), but I think there are sufficient mentions for a weak keep. Please have a look, whenever you have a moment. Drmies (talk) 00:06, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 12:59, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - with some caveats. This needs better sourcing of critical discussion of the essay. And it's ranking as a "mid-importance" article for WikiProject Philosophy is way-out... However, I think DGG is incorrect that the essay is an unimportant one. Among anarchists this essay is well-known and still quite frequently discussed. My impression is that it's one of the best-known contributions to modern anarchist thought, although I am not an expert on this matter. TheGrappler (talk) 16:08, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:37, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Unsourced original essay about a non-notable essay. Easy call. This is probably a notable topic if someone were to get serious about writing a sourced piece, but they'll still need to engage in WP:BLOWTHEMOTHERUP at that time. This is unsalvageable. Carrite (talk) 00:52, 21 June 2011 (UTC) Last edit: Carrite (talk) 00:54, 21 June 2011 (UTC) [reply]

I'll get out of the way. My bad. Carrite (talk) 22:50, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep TheGrappler is right: this is one of the best-known modern anarchist essays. its mid-importance ranking for the Anarchist Task Force of WikiProject Philosophy reflects that. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 05:53, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There seem to be plenty of sources which confirm the notability of this essay. The rest is a matter of ordinary editing per our editing policy. Warden (talk) 22:07, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Simple research on the subject would have removed any doubts the nominator had as to the notability of the subject. Good faith should be assumed by Wikipedia editors, and so the nominator should have considered the possibility that this article was created due to its notability, and then perform a little digging to find the evidence of notability the creator forgot to include. AFD is not clean up. The need to clean and wikify this article is not just cause for deletion. --Cast (talk) 16:31, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep While the article needs work, the essay is obviously notable, especially among anarchists. --Violarulez (talk) 06:09, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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.