Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alternative Media Project


 * 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   no consensus.  MBisanz  talk 01:58, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Alternative Media Project

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Not a single reliable source establishes notability, delete as per WP:NOTE and WP:CORP Peephole (talk) 22:50, 1 February 2009 (UTC) 
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.   —Peephole (talk) 22:36, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions.   —Peephole (talk) 22:37, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Chuck Munson. Squidfryerchef (talk) 02:59, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:30, 6 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete or Redirect as it fails almost every criterion of WP:N Mkdw talk 03:36, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep as an entirely reasonable split-off of Infoshop.org, Practical Anarchy and Chuck Munson. The topic here is notable; it is simply an issue of presentation as to whether this material ought to be presented as a stand alone article or in one of the others. If the situation was reversed and the components of the project (i.e. Munson, PA and Infoshop) were less notable than the project itself, they could be merged to the project article, but it makes no sense to merge the broader topic (AMP) to one of the narrower ones. The encyclopaedia would not benefit from the removal of the article, as it provides needed context to the reader that would be obscured elsewhere. Skomorokh  16:55, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Skomorokh makes a convincing argument based on what is best for the encyclopedia rather on the minutiae of guidelines. This organisation publishes more than one notable publication, so should definitely be covered in Wikipedia, and it wouldn't be appropriate for the information to be merged to one or other of the articles on the publications. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:17, 7 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been listed as an Anarchism task force deletion discussion.


 * 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.