This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was no consensus. Tony Sidaway|Talk 21:22, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Non-notable term, would say redirect, but it's too obscure a term to even be useful as that. Term not used by anarchists themselves, nor by general public, so it isn't justified.--Revolutionary Left | Che y Marijuana 05:18, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)
Keep The term comes up in Google 3920 times (after subtracting "post-left anarchism" even). The Anarchism article includes more types of anarchism than Left Anarchism. RJII 05:23, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
No, it comes up 373 times. [1] :) — Helpful Dave 13:13, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
You did the search wrong. You need to put "post-left" in quotes like this: [2] otherwise the hyphen in "post-left" is a minus sign. RJII 15:19, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Note: this term is an exclusively anarcho-capitalist term, which is used to refer to anti-capitalist anarchists. All forms of anarchism listed on that page would fall under that definition, despite RJII's claims to the contrary.--Revolutionary Left | Che y Marijuana 05:45, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)
Keep This page should be kept, because it is perhaps a better established name than the other alternative Anarchism (anti-capitalism) which although more descriptive, is not so thoroughly established in the literature.--Silverback 05:29, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)
Keep, though redirect is fine with me as well. The concept of rewriting the history of Anarchism or redefining what Anarchism means is a lot more notable than the term. This revisionism deserves to be explained in an encyclopedia. Rl 07:36, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
That's an intriguing suggestion, but it does not need its own article. It would make sense as a section within anarcho-capitalism explaining that phenomenon.--Revolutionary Left | Che y Marijuana 07:38, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)
Please stop using original research as citation. Those two sources come straight from the same camp which is trying to use the term "Left Anarchism" as leverage. --albamuth 03:21, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Redirect to Anarchism, which should be interpreted as "delete" for the purposes of this Vfd. Note that the Anarchism article is about "left anarchism". This is a duplicate. :) — Helpful Dave 13:13, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
A redirect doesn't work, as all anarchism isn't left anarchism. It's a bad redirect --not precise. RJII 17:11, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
That doesn't matter. Lots of things redirect where the article is more general than the redirect page; e.g., Type 1 diabetes redirects to Diabetes mellitus. (This is not a vote.) —msh210 13:53, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Redirect This is so obviously a partisan attempt by a small anarcho-capitalist support group to control the dialogue of the anarcho-capitalist/anarchist debate that it isn't even funny, just sad. Kev 18:03, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Note that the some of the people who are for redirecting are those who delete any mention of the term "left anarchism" in the Anarchism article. Go figure. It either means something or it doesn't. RJII 18:09, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete POV fork. But if it comes to redirect or keep, then I'd say redirect.Mattley 12:36, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Merge most of the current text on anarchism to this location. - Nat Krause 06:03, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Either delete or go with Virgin Molotov Cocktail's suggestion. I looked at the web search done above by RJII, and the great majority of the sites listed were from opponents of anarchism, or were anarchist sites which rejected the term. millerc 03:18, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Sure, but those opponents are many and noteable. There is no good reason to censor this term from Wikipedia. RJII 13:11, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete POV fork. This term was created by so-called "Anarcho-capitalists" in order to marginalize anarchists, as part of the ongoing debate within the anarchism article. This is like a religious group creating a page called "heathen christians" to distinguish their own church.--albamuth 03:18, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete Anarchism is a well defined historical term, left-anarchism is an obscure neologism. This page, and the efforts to merge Anarchism into it, is either the result of extreme historical ignorance or an active effort to subvert the meaning of the word Anarchism. 80.203.115.12 13:31, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
How does it subvert the meaning of the word Anarchism? Maybe you're just trying to monopolize the use of the word. Everybody knows there are two broad categories of anarchism ..left and right. RJII 00:10, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
There is a vast body of litterature that refers to anarchism in the sense of the Anarchism article. There's a historically significant movement of people that have referred to themselves as anarchists, not 'left-anarchists'. Renaming the anarchism article to 'left-anarchism' is historical revisionism, it implies that there's always been a left/right divide in anarchism. Even now, with anarcho-capitalism being a notable political theory, the left/right divide is a simplistic way of pointing out the differences. The world does not neatly divide into two categories. If the terms 'left anarchism' and 'right anarchism' are indeed notable, they should be explained in a historical context. 80.203.115.12 13:30, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
No, not really, not unless wikipedia's adopting an official policy of ignoring historical evidence and reality.--Revolutionary Left | Che y Marijuana 01:41, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)
This guy knows the difference between "left-anarchism" and "right-anarchism", and he's not an anarcho-capitalist: [3]
Maybe he's been misled by a bogus encyclopedia article. Mattley 16:53, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.