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. MBisanz ^talk 01:25, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

National-Anarchism[edit]

National-Anarchism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Articles whose subject fails to meet the relevant notability guideline. It's never been written about in any book or other non-internet medium and it's supporters waver in the neighborhood of 10 Veganbikepunk (talk) 06:55, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. —Veganbikepunk (talk) 06:55, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and merge I'd have to say delete, but can we archive this in some way, and merge the content into related articles? This isn't a bad article by any means, and I'd hate to see well-written content deleted wholesale just because the main article was not notable. That being said, this article really doesn't meet notability. --Pstanton 07:08, 20 January 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pstanton (talk • contribs)

See Wikipedia:Delete and merge. The anarchism and nationalism article is a possible target for a merge. Skomorokh 07:19, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I think that it's rather clear that this article is maybe the only significant mention of this topic anywhere. Having this article seems only to grant some form of credibility to an idea that doesn't really exist outside of a very few bizarre corners of the internet and wikipedia. As to merging and saving the article, I think that were the topic of any encyclopidic relevance I'd agree, however I imagine innumberable articles could be well written about obscure people or topics and if everyone was saved simply because they were well written the value of the encyclopidia would be diminished.--97.120.94.36 (talk) 07:26, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been listed as an Anarchism task force deletion discussion. Skomorokh 07:19, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep - Other than the nominating editor's complete loss of AGF in the article's creator, there is some wholly missed information. The numerous refs can be dwindled down but still have enough to pass N. Well written and informative on a growing political think tank. Hooper (talk) 08:02, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep - I have actually met the leader of the Australian cell, can confirm they do practice street activism in Melbourne and Vietnam. Premature nomination. Ottre 08:49, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
• Keep Sources are available to establish notability, [1]. --J.Mundo (talk) 20:07, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The second Strong Keep should be disregarded on two levels. 1) It's entirely anecdotal, and wikipedia is simply not the place for articles written about anecdotes. 2) It claims to have met the leader of an anarchist cell. Ridiculous on the face of it. Very telling, though, I must say. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.120.94.36 (talk) 17:34, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment How is it ridiculous?

Somebody please call public eye magazine to find whether or not they employ fact checkers (a National-Anarchist protest is covered here). Ottre 13:03, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

• Keep. Clearly notable. There are plenty of sources, and a Google search shows a great deal of discussion about the subject. The subject is mentioned in the broader anarchism and nationalism article, but this one gives a lot more detail. Aymatth2 (talk) 19:58, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Notable, I've seen it talked about quite a lot. Zazaban (talk) 20:53, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete This article is absolute rubbish. Sourced to white-power newsgroups and blogs, this article WAAAYY over-represents the notability and importance of this very small, insignificant ideology. L0b0t (talk) 03:06, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As I said in the last AfD there is not a single reliable source cited anywhere in this article. All the sources cited are web forums, white power websites, commie agitprop, radical rag-sheets, and unattributed political screeds. This article fails WP:GNG, WP:NOBJ, and WP:RS. L0b0t (talk) 03:17, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep National Anarchism is a new political movement that 1) Has been written about in books (Tradition and Revolution by Troy Southgate) 2) It is widely acknowledged on all sides of the political spectrum to be a new political movement 3) Every year or so it's people with a partisan agenda against National Anarchism or constantly revert relevant edits to the article that call for it to be deleted. 4) National Anarchists have engaged in political activism throughout the world and are clearly a notable current of the anarchist movement. Rjuner —Preceding undated comment was added at 06:28, 21 January 2009 (UTC).[reply]

1) Troy Southgate is the creator of this particular sub-genre of an ideology so of course he has written about it (primary source). 2) This sub-genre is not even widely acknowledged by anarchists, let alone "all sides of the political spectrum". 3) Failing to assume good faith and questioning the motivations of other editors is not a valid argument at AfD. 4) Many people around the world have engaged in political activism, that does not make them notable, only reliable sources publishing material about the activism does so. Again, there are no reliable sources anywhere in this article. L0b0t (talk) 10:10, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Notable and well sourced. There is no requirement to have subject of an article published in books.Biophys (talk) 05:02, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Delete Not only is this not notible, the only one non-internet source so far come up with is written by the "founder" and perhaps only member, of this obscurest of obscure topics. On top of that the publisher of the book written by Southgate is about as obscure as you can find. One un-noteworthy from an obscure publisher, plus a slew of internet links to obscure nazi webites does not make for a genuine movement, or notability. At most there should be brief mention of this concept in fascism, or nazism. --WikiAlmighty (talk) 05:12, 23 January 2009 (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.