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 per WP:SNOWBALL. (non-admin closure). Also, the nominator is an obvious sockpuppet of banned User:The Devil's Advocate.
--PanchoS (talk) 02:26, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Anarcho-capitalism[edit]

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

Only one suitable source is used in the article, Playboy Magazine. The rest are Anarcho Capitalists writing their own thoughts and theories. That is unencyclopedic. A new article can be started using reliable, independent third-party sources. The easiest way to purge this article of unsuitable sources is to delete it and start over. EoT State (talk) 22:32, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
— EoT State (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Speedy Keep The nomination is disruptive. There exist any number of discussions of anarcho-capitalism in reliable sources. A famous book - Anarchy, State, and Utopia - was written largely to discredit the position - and that's just one example; there is a whole section on anarcho-capitalism in Peter Marshall's Demanding the Impossible: A History of Anarchism. By writing that, "A new article can be started using reliable, independent third-party sources" the nominator is effectively admitting that the topic is in fact notable, which makes the nomination clearly inappropriate. If he was really acting in good faith, the nominator could have tried to improve sourcing at the article, rather than start a frivolous AfD. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:44, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:49, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:49, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You haven't listed any suitable sources yet. I'm not sure you're aware of what suitable RS's are. "Improving sourcing" would entail gutting the article. Would you be ok with that? I presume not, with the hostility you've shown me thus far. EoT State (talk) 22:54, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You are trying to use AfD for a purpose - removing most of the sources in an article - for which it is neither intended nor appropriate, and I'm sure that will be recognized as disruptive. I note that your proposal to gut the article comes immediately after a user was blocked for edit warring to remove very large amounts of content. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:57, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Are you aware of your duty to assume good faith? Enough with the hostility and accusations. EoT State (talk) 23:00, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:NOTSUICIDE. I apologize if my suspicions are incorrect, but at this stage, I'm sure you can understand that they seem reasonable. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:03, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – The subject clearly passes WP:GNG, having received plenty of significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. Source examples include, but are not limited to: ^[1], ^[2], ^[3], ^[4], ^[5], ^[6], ^[7], ^[8], More.... North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:55, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

These are not "reliable, independent third-party sources with a reputation for fact checking and accuracy." Even if they were, the article still relies almost exclusively on sources that do not meet that criteria. If a few of us can get to work removing tons of unsuitable sources and any material that cannot be properly sourced, that could be an alternative to deletion. But it seems clear there are partisans who are going to strongly contest the removal of anything. Making deletion the much easier solution to the problem. Rip the band-aid off. EoT State (talk) 23:06, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, you're incorrect. For example, the Journal of Libertarian Studies, the source of the first, seventh and eighth references I list above, is quite reliable. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:09, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

EoT State, as already pointed out to you, nominating articles for deletion is not an appropriate way to improving sourcing, or to achieve anything similar. You're also ignoring the fact that even if the article's current content were unacceptable for some reason, it would be necessary to preserve its past history, something which deleting the article would prevent. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:10, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It would be preferable to just start removing sources and the resulting unsourced content. However it only takes a glance at the edit history to see that partisans like yourself would strongly contest that. This is the path of least resistance. If you showed a willingness to work collaboratively (I.e. not calling my first contribution "nonsense"), this would not have been necessary. EoT State (talk) 23:16, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:BEFORE. I ask again whether you have edited the article before with another account. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:19, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I ask again whether you are assuming good faith. EoT State (talk) 23:42, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep - No valid reason for deletion given, subject obviously notable per sources linked by Northamerica1000 above and, well, everywhere. Also, given the recent history of this article, which includes extensive disruptive editing by now-blocked users followed by a nomination for deletion by a brand new user, I'd suggest looking into WP:SPI. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 23:21, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My speedy keep is not, by the way, an endorsement of the current version of the article. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 23:21, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep regardless of the state of the article -- I really haven't even bothered to check as Afd is WP:NOTCLEANUP -- the Google Scholar results alone above easily establish notability. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:37, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep - No reason at all given for deletion, the subject is obviously notable, the sources are clearly notable, and the nomination is clearly not in good faith, given that the person who nominated it created an account almost immediately after another individual's account was blocked for a week for disruptive editing/3RR--which smells an awful lot like Sockpuppetry (which isn't allowed except under certain circumstances). This nomination is simply someone's vendetta and nothing more than a waste of time which could be otherwise spent on better things. - Knight of BAAWA (talk) 23:45, 7 January 2016 (UTC) 23:44, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nearly all sources do not conform to policy. They are not reliable, independent third party sources with a reputation for fact checking and accuracy. It's frankly shocking you'd claim even the blogs are RS's. It's POV-pushing editors like you who make this path to improving the article necessary. EoT State (talk) 23:50, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep. This concept has received significant coverage in philosophical, political, and economic scholarship. There is no doubt this passes WP:GNG comfortably. Any disputes about content within the article should be discussed at its talk page, not at AFD (see WP:ATD). -- Notecardforfree (talk) 01:00, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Pile-on speedy keep. This nomination is not the correct course of action whatever the intentions of the nominator: cleaning up the article is (however difficult that may be perceived to be). Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 02:09, 8 January 2016 (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.