Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anarchist International (2nd nomination)


 * 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   Delete as CSD G12, blatant copyright violation and resalt. BJ Talk 05:50, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Anarchist International
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

An article on an organization that, we're told, was created in 1968 and "expanded world wide" in 1998. It runs a website with the domain name anarchy.no. A particularly notable achievement of this organization is its publication of the International Journal of Anarchism (IJA), which, we're told, is "the only Refereed anarchist scientific journal in world". The article has 21 footnotes, as well as other in-text citations; the latter in the form see IJA 2(35) and 3(38). Pretty impressive, no?

Ah, but. . . all but the last three of the footnotes are links to this or that page within anarchy.no (Anarchist International's own website); those last three footnotes establish that IJA is actually shelved by certain institutions. And every in-text citation that I can see is to IJA (Anarchist International's own publication).

Bearing in mind that IJA is not something comparable to the Bulletin of the People's Front of Judea but is instead a "refereed anarchist scientific journal", I'm willing to overlook its place of publication. However, less than entirely sure that its "scientific" or "refereed" pretensions would be taken quite as seriously by its potential customer base as by its publisher, I decided to look it up at Copac (not because of any British bias; it's just that Copac works at least as conveniently and reliably as do its equivalents in other nations). Copac indicates that either (a) the International Journal of Anarchism is shelved by a total of zero (0) British university libraries or (b) I made some typing mistake. I've a hunch that it's the former.

So all we really know is that this organization (i) says a lot about itself, and (ii) puts out a journal that university libraries might be expected to buy but that most do not buy. Its achievements, perhaps very great, are not verifiable. Or (excuse me while I glue on my beard), Anarchism, si; Anarchist International, no! -- Hoary (talk) 00:23, 28 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions.   —Hoary (talk) 00:30, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.   —Hoary (talk) 00:36, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions.   —Hoary (talk) 00:36, 28 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Weak delete Barring the addition of some proper sourcing, this article fails WP:V, WP:N, and WP:ORG. L0b0t (talk) 00:51, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete, as hoax. The claims of this organization are exaggerated beyond belief. It's just ridiculous :D There simply zero reliable sources for anything on the article. The only hits on google are either self-publications about how great they are or denounces of how this organization is a hoax. I sptrongly suspect that sourcing can't be improved at all because there isn't simply nothing to source, unless you can source how this is a silly hoax. --Enric Naval (talk) 01:03, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. No significant coverage by independent reliable sources. Also, as was noted by others, significant WP:V problems with much of the info in the article. Fails WP:ORG. Nsk92 (talk) 01:18, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete with regrets. Anna Quist has done an excellent job of writing and building this article; however, because nearly the entire article is based on the organization's own website, and not external, independent sources. If this can be corrected, then I'd change my position, and if the article hits >50% external sources, any editor can change my vote. ThuranX (talk) 02:48, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete Per what I said the last time this very same article was up for deletion. Zazaban (talk) 02:54, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete This article has had several opportunities to be presented in a verifiable manner, but there seem to be no references for it. This isn't my first encounter with this group.  I've occasionally taken it upon myself to research into this group over the past several years, and have never found any secondary sources on it.  It always seemed like a fringe group to me, and the inability of this article's author to present any now is the final nail in its coffin.--Cast (talk) 03:01, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete The article lacks verifiable sources. Some claims seem obviously incorrect. Notability remains an issue. I have also done a good deal of research attempting to verify any of Anna's claims, and what I have found confirms none of them. The "peer-reviewed journal" appears to be a poorly proofread newsletter, largely made up of uncredited borrowings from other sources. Libertatia (talk) 03:20, 28 July 2008 (UTC)


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


 * Delete per above, and after reading ANI it seems appropriate to either salt, or re-salt, both The Anarchist International and Anarchist International. Pete.Hurd (talk) 03:44, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Fringe, not verifiable. References seem concocted.Annette46 (talk) 03:46, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Nominator is right. No independent reliable sources here. Artene50 (talk) 04:18, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - per nom, and the reasoning put out at the last AfD which was only a few weeks ago. This severely fails on independent sources --T-rex 04:57, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Update! The article has now acquired a speedy-copyvio template, citing this page of anarchy.no as the source. Excitinger and excitinger. -- Hoary (talk) 05:43, 28 July 2008 (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.