Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anarcho-nihilism


 * 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. -- Cirt (talk) 17:50, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Anarcho-nihilism

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Covered by "Nihilist movement" Lenerd (talk) 22:35, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Then redirect it there. --  Blanchardb - Me•MyEars•MyMouth - timed 04:24, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
 * But if you're going to redirect, merge anything useful first.  Tisane  talk/stalk 17:17, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget  12:39, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:40, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete The sources in Google books and scholar do not show that there is any body of literature about this topic, and the sources seem to use it differently.  TFD (talk) 00:27, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Oppose the redirect which had been prematurely applied and has been reversed. The Nihilist movement article covers something quite specific in place and time - and very distinct from the content of this article, which should either stand or fall in is own right. AllyD (talk) 20:52, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete The article combines some referenced literary historical examples then some unreferenced sentences on two minor political groups (the first of which seems to amount to a Facebook page and neither of which appears notable). The references do not really support the term being central to the work of these writers, so the article can be regarded as Original Research or an Essay albeit short. AllyD (talk) 21:07, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete This doesn't appear to be a standard term: I can't find it in any books on the history or theory of anarchism. Also, almost the entire article is WP:COPYVIO from the given sources (with no more than minor paraphrasing), which makes it look like the article has been created by Googling for the term and then copying every hit into the article, rather than an attempt to describe a known position. –Syncategoremata (talk) 03:46, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - There are several sources that I could find here. It is not a completely unknown concept, and in fact, from the sources there and in Google, generally notable. Contrary to the discussion above, a poorly worded article is not a reason to delete. Bearian (talk) 22:19, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I suspect it will be a keepable article. Anarchism and nihilism seem to go together like straight edge and veganism. In both cases, I'm not sure why.  Tisane  talk/stalk 22:35, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
 * There are only two Google news results, someone describing someone as that. Perhaps just two things they called them, mixed together.  Gay vegetarian, or vegan communist, would be the same.  Just two different things, people can mix together.  Any reason to believe it isn't just Nihilism and Anarchism, put together?  There are 31 results for Google book search, and glancing over the summaries, it does seem like a real thing, or least gets legitimate coverage.   D r e a m Focus  21:35, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * There are thousands of results on Wikipedia when I search for "Anarcho". Webster dictionary seems to have a different meaning of that word, instead of just an abbreviation for anarchy.  We have Wikipedia articles for Anarcho-punk, Anarcho-communist, Anarcho-capitalism, Anarcho-primitivism, Anarcho-syndicalism,Anarcho-pacifism, Anarcho-queer, Anarcho-feminist, and others.   D r e a m Focus  21:40, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - WP:OTHERSTUFF and WP:GHITS are not reasons to keep an article. Reliable sources to establish the notability of this philosophical movement are not forthcoming.    Snotty Wong   soliloquize 05:51, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Ghits doesn't apply here, since how many times someone uses the term in the news or in notable books, is quite relevant.  D r e a m Focus  12:39, 8 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: The article under discussion here has been flagged for Rescue by the Article Rescue Squadron.   Snotty Wong   speak 05:51, 8 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete - this concept does not seem to have sufficient coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. Robofish (talk) 17:42, 8 July 2010 (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.