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 delete. – ABCD 22:18, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
The article has not been edited since january, and all the same issues remain. It's based entirely on original research, with such claims as the idea that anarchism isn't a political philosophy. From the very core, it is an article written to support a tiny ideological group's attempts to redefine a historical movement that rejects it, in a way that favours their inclusion.
As with before, this debate is covered on several pages already, and there is no need for a POV article that is so inactive as to have zero positive changes since our last VfD listing in December of 2004.
Delete There's no value in having this, seeing as how it's slanted.--Hoovernj 02:40, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete adding "X critique of Y" instead of enhancing the "X" or "Y" article leads to fragmentation and articles nobody cares about. --Pjacobi 14:26, 2005 Mar 24 (UTC)
Delete as per the above. The article may bring up some interesting points but the information would be better suited in the related pages and not as a standing page of its own. Arkyan 18:32, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
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.
Delete, no point having this duplicate information here like this. Shane King 05:22, Dec 9, 2004 (UTC)
Delete. The other articles cover it well. — [[User:Knowledge Seeker|Knowledge Seeker দ (talk)]] 08:39, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Weak keep. I'm currently trying to figure out how significant this issue is. Articles about well-known debates are always encyclopedic, otherwise we would need to delete methodenstreit and economic calculation debate. We already have Anarchist objections to marxism, Anarchist objections to capitalism, so why not this one? The fact that the article summarizes a debate or critique does not mean it is biased, and frankly I don't see NPOV issues here. VfD submitter's own POV seems to be heavily towards left-anarchism and directly in opposition to anarcho-capitalism, and that might be a factor here. My suggestion is to send this to cleanup, for this would benefit from more encyclopedic writing style. It reads too much like a pamphlet right now. jni 08:44, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Merge and redirectKeep growing support inspired me to rethink [[User:Sam Spade|SamSpadeWants you to vote!]] 23:16, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Delete: The issue is not sufficiently significant on its own, were NPOV possible, to require a separate article, as opposed to a paragraph explanation in the Anarchism article. I'm sure it means a lot to the people who are Anarchists libertarian who dislike the Anarchists who are of the old Trotskyite stamp, but it's not worth article schism. Geogre 14:48, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Concur with Che y Marijuana, very little salvagable content and even that exists in other articles already. millerc 17:24, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Delete. It even admits it's a critique, not a reference article. P Ingerson 00:20, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Could you please explain why critiques are not encyclopedic? I mean here well known debates, not POV criticism cast by one Wikipedian. jni 06:55, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Delete it. —[[User:Radman1|RaD Man (talk)]] 03:43, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Keep. Critiques are ok. It is not a significant issue but neither is the anarchist critique of marxism, which a legit page. I think Wiki has expanded to the point where such a page is justified. However, I would like to see the page revised to look a bit more professional. -Rossamus 04:22, Dec 12, 2004 (UTC)
Keep. If possible, Merge with anarcho-capitalism. It's a valid subject, but perhaps not worthy of an article. Either way, the substance should at least be merged, and perhaps kept as an article if it can't be properly merged. Also, Rossamus, where is that critique of Marxism? A search didn't reveal it. --Golbez 03:11, Dec 13, 2004 (UTC)
Keep or a possible merge with the Anarchism article, but that article is already quite long. Definitely not a delete. 18.104.22.168 08:53, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Keep for the reasons stated above. -FLafaire 16:24, Dec 13, 2004 (UTC)
Keep -- No more inherently POV than, say, an article about the Lamarckist critique of Darwinian theory, which would presumably examine the debate over the inheritance of acquired characteristics, and which I would likewise vote to keep. The title implies a focus, but not a bias. All vision has focus. --Christofurio 20:24, Dec 13, 2004 (UTC)
Keep - this is clearly adding to the Wikipedia. It is not heavily POV and I found reading it very instructive. Anarcho-capitalism is in itself a long article. There is nothing wrong with coverage of debates and one or two of the earlier Delete votes make me question whether or not we're getting a bit of a war between different sorts of anarchists here... The Land 17:50, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
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.
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.