Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Right to Be Greedy

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 redirect to Egoist anarchism#Situationists. Star Mississippi 02:42, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Right to Be Greedy

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Originally PRODded by @Grnrchst: with rationale "All of the citations listed are from the text itself and there's barely any actual information about the text in the article, which largely consists of direct quotes from the text. In its current form, this article doesn't meet notability standards and should probably be deleted, unless reliable secondary sourcing can be provided." Seconded by @TenPoundHammer:. Thirded by me, rationale "Thirding; did a WP:BEFORE, nothing turned up in institutional library searches, gschol, or a gbooks skim."

Deprodded by @Spinningspark: "Capable of being improved I think. Not necessary to delete first." On the talk page, he produced these links as "non-trivial coverage": [1], [2], and [3]; and observed that there are "also mentions" here [4] and in other places that weren't readily available on gbooks.

I stand by what I said in reply there: these "all look like passing mentions - it's brought up briefly as an example in the context of talking about something else." People are aware of this work; it is known. But they bring it up as an example, while focusing discussion on something else; by WP:GNG, it is not notable. It looks like the only significant source we have for the book is the book itself.

(I've attempted to ping the three other involved editors. If Twinkle's XfD function doesn't allow pings, someone please let me know!) asilvering (talk) 19:55, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Philosophy and Politics. asilvering (talk) 19:55, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as prod2-er. The sources provided are merely passing mentions. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 20:11, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:19, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Egoist anarchism#Situationists, it's not an unimaginable search term. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 06:31, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak agree to redirect. I think this section you suggested should be rewritten, perhaps using the above mentioned sources rather than directly citing the text itself. Incorporation into a smaller section within a larger article seems like a good balance notability-wise. Grnrchst (talk) 10:28, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There are a few issues. (1) There is nothing to recover from the current article, as no secondary sources are cited. (2) I've read through the four Google Books sources above and agree with the nom that they are mostly passing mentions. Furthermore, I don't see how we would write an encyclopedia article that does justice to the topic without devolving into original research and primary sources, based on the available refs. The sources quote from the text because its contents are lyrical and inscrutable. (3) Same goes for Egoist anarchism § Situationists—it does not say anything that helps a general reader understand egoist anarchism. That paragraph should be removed from the article if that's all we have to say about its relation to the topic. And then there would be no reason to redirect there. (The paragraph should also be removed because it's only cited to itself and attempts to make analytic claims, which require secondary sources.) There are no other valid redirect targets. czar 12:09, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Czar: I just rewrote the section Egoist anarchism#Situationists with the above mentioned sources and it wound up being rather short. Definitely not enough for its own article, but I think it works well enough for a small section of a larger one. (Although its notability is still questionable) Grnrchst (talk) 12:48, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I still don't think it belongs in the article, but that's a content matter for its talk page: Talk:Egoist anarchism § Scope. czar 13:13, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I support redirect to Egoist anarchism#Situationists now that something has been written in that article. SpinningSpark 13:24, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Egoist anarchism#Situationists. Fails WP:BK and WP:GNG, per nom. and others, so it shouldn't remain as a standalone article. However, per Grnrchst and others, a redirect is justified.Sal2100 (talk) 17:32, 13 May 2022 (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.