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. Nominator has withdrawn but this discussion has been open long enough and has enough participation for a "keep" close. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 15:32, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

International of Anarchist Federations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

The subjet of this article has no known notable sources. The page seems to be perpetuated in a POV manner soley to promote the subject of the article. 0nonanon0 (talk) 23:56, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Also, all sources included on the page are self-published propagandist type materials meant to promote the organization. Also, consider that if the only sources that could be found are in spanish, perhaps this article would be better suited for the spanish wiki. I would be happy to see a ref in English from ANY major news source, though I do not believe it has ever been noted in major news sources. --0nonanon0 (talk) 00:00, 12 October 2009 (UTC)Also, the name of the article doesn't make sense in English. --0nonanon0 (talk) 00:02, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• KEEP The subject is notable enough to be covered in some reputable news sources and merits it's own article. The current article still suffers from a slight lack of coverage, heavy reliance on self-published propiganda and the inherrant POV associated with political pamphlets. Could use work, but shouldn't disapear. Thanks all. 0nonanon0 (talk) 22:47, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Keeparticle has existed for 5 years, with no third party references existing today. unless someone can add a solid reference immediately, this must go. i have sympathy for this presumably extant organization, but if you cant ever get mentioned by anyone else, youre a treehouse club, "anarchists only, no smelly authoritarians welcome". OK, looks like some more info was found that shows notability. i honely couldnt find any myself, but now we have the correct name below. I still have problems with the article, but those are for the talk page, not here.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 02:05, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been listed as an Anarchism task force deletion discussion.  Skomorokh, barbarian  06:10, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - perhaps not a lot comes up from Google because in English it tends to be called the "International Federation of Anarchists". This association has been around now for nearly 140 years. Just because in the past couple of years they've been a bit quiet, doesn't mean that the article should be scrapped. Some of the organisations that are a member of the IAF, such as the Spanish FAI, are still very vocal and important today. Historically, the IAF/IFA are important, and a current lapse of activity should not mean removal from Wikipedia. In any case, I shall find a reference in English to help this article along. --Tris2000 (talk) 11:11, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I have now added a couple of links, including one from the Scotsman/Edinburgh Evening News, so hopefully this will satisfy the nominator. Tris2000 (talk) 11:34, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for updating. The Edinburough news source looks good. It appears that it's a reputable citywide paper. So the next question is, is a topic notable when the only reliable source we can find from a local city paper? I won't push it much further than that. It just does not seem in my mind that any of the other sources would hold up to much scrutiny. Would you be able to find any others like that one? Peace. 0nonanon0 (talk) 01:17, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - How about [1] which mentions them as having a presence on the 1 May 2001 protests in London. It's on the BBC website, pretty reputable methinks! Tris2000 (talk) 13:36, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perfect. :) Exctly what the article needed, thanks! 0nonanon0 (talk) 22:44, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep There is almost nothing written about any of the major political internationals and almost all the information in their articles comes from their own websites. The International Democrat Union for example has no third party sources, and the articles on the SI, LI, CDI and the Alliance of Democrats are similar. The Four Deuces (talk) 16:21, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't that make it non-notable then? 0nonanon0 (talk) 01:17, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My point is that the same criteria should be used for the Anarchist International as for other political internationals. Information about these organizations is rarely available in the media or Google books but can be documented to exist and are written about in academic sources. The IDU for example was founded by leaders of conservative parties in the UK, France, US and Germany.[2] The best procedure in this type of article is to ask for expert assistance in finding better sources. BTW here is a link to a Time Magazine about the first meeting of the International (the Third Congress of Anarchist Federations) at Carrara in 1968: [3]. Incidentally there are articles about the first and second congresses: Anarchist St. Imier International and International Anarchist Congress of Amsterdam. The Four Deuces (talk) 15:37, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with your point that they should all be treated the same but not your conclusion, that crappy sourcing in one makes crappy sourcing in others excusable ;). Excellent find on those sources. Please, please include them in the afforementioned articles and thanks for digging. 0nonanon0 (talk) 22:44, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I agree there should be better sources, but they are hard to find. BTW there is a conference of IDU youth this weekend in Washington. John Boehner, Mitch McConnell and Jeb Bush are guests. It will be interesting to see if it gets any media coverage. The Four Deuces (talk) 23:08, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This information is relevant in many situations. --Vindheim (talk) 10:08, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This article deals with an global organization with too many local chapters active to be considered for deletion. --Eduen (talk) 01:26, 15 October 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.