Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andrej Grubacic


 * 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 keep. Continue discussion of the article's improvement on the relevant talk page. (Non-admin closure by Intelligent  sium  00:37, 4 January 2010 (UTC))

Andrej Grubacic

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Subject of article doesn't meet notability guidelines MarkNau (talk) 14:21, 19 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Okay. So I am not the maker of this page. I was one the people editing it.
 * The subject of this entry is a yugoslav (now serbian) anarchist. His relevance resides in the fact that he is a well known anarchist theorist. His influence is important there. He is arguably the best know anarchist from the Balkans.
 * I happen to know this because my parents are from croatia and I still spend a lot of time there.
 * We moved to redwood city, ca, few years ago.
 * I am also an anarchist and a student and i am familiar with the importance of the author for the international and regional anarchist movement.
 * I gather this is why his entry was made in the first place.
 * I looked at other living anarchists on wikipedia. The subject of the entry is better documented then many, if not most other anarchists. What i see as a mistake is that he is listed as an academic, which is clearly misleading.
 * His importance is in realm of anarchist theory and activism. I believe that this should be evident, both in English and local languages. Maker of this page, as well as myself and other editors, inserted verifiable references as to the importance of Grubacic to the anarchist world. Action and theory. So I suggest that we remove anything that indicate that Grubacic is important as an academic. Don't get me wrong, i don't want to be unfair. He is a scholar. There are not too many anarchist scholars around.
 * That is important.
 * As me and others tried to emphasize, he is the author of two very important books for the contemporary American anarchist movement.
 * I am referring especially to the recent Wobblies and Zapatistas. They are reading groups all over the country and that book serves as a reference point for many anarchists and Marxist rethinking their practice and relationship. It is read from Ireland to Croatia, and reviewed by likes of Chomsky and Zinn and Graeber (another important theorist).
 * He also is one of the leading anarchist propagandist in the US and the Balkans.
 * There is an abundance of links that speak of his anarchist propaganda tours and talks.
 * But what I am really trying to say is that this should be seen in the context of his anarchism (theory and action).
 * To sum up, my voice and suggestion goes to keeping the entry, but to make it clear that Grubacic's relevance is that he is an anarchist activist and anarchist scholar. He is one of the few. He is internationally relevant for the anarchist movement. There are enough references, I maintain, to testify to this fact.
 * I also made a comparison with other anarchist from the Retort collective, like Iain boal, or other important living anarchists from the United States, like Cindy Milstein, and it seems clear that, comparatively speaking, his relevance and notability has been established by relevant sources.
 * So, I say, let's keep the entry and change the lead (important anarchist, not academic). Bobmarley13 (talk) 21:32, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Skomoroh, who is the maker of the page, will write his position on this during the holidays. I am curious as to what he has to say. Bobmarley13 (talk) 00:51, 21 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Croatia-related deletion discussions.  —GregorB (talk) 01:32, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  —David Eppstein (talk) 02:15, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. The only cites on GS are 6, 3, 2, 2, 2, 2, 1. That's all. Subject, as academic or anarchist, does not appear to pass WP:Prof #1 or any other category. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:07, 20 December 2009 (UTC).


 *  Comment. I believe that, in the world of anarchist thought, the subject does indeed pass. As i remarked before, this is well referenced for a living anarchists. It needs tiding up. I strongly insist that anarchist task force should look at this and make a recommendation.Bobmarley13 (talk) 18:53, 20 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment. It seems incongruous that anarchists, who so vehemently reject structured institutions, should seek to be recognised in a structured institution such as Wikipedia but, of course, this does not make them unWP:notable. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:26, 21 December 2009 (UTC).


 * This is an incorrect understanding of certain elements of anarchist theory. Primarily, anarchists reject institutions of power and authority. Certain anarchists may reject institutions in general, preferring "organic" organizations which do not outlive the short term goals of their founders. Others prefer organizations of varying size and composition which they may accept as institutions intended to outlive their founders. Examples of the latter which anarchists have founded, or co-founded, include the IWW (a non-anarchist institution co-founded by anarchists such as Lucy Parsons) and the Anarchist Black Cross (an explicitly anarchist project founded by multiple anarchists, which has undergone a morphology as it as been disbanded, recreated, and split into decentralized formats). Similarly, the Anarchist Task Force of Wikipedia has been founded as a long standing institution intended to provided editors with an interest in anarchist related articles. It is currently ebbing in activity, but will remain to continue its mission as its original founders move on. --Cast (talk) 23:58, 26 December 2009 (UTC)


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


 * Comment. Interesting point about anarchists and structures. I am an anarchist in my 20's, and most of my formation happened back in the "old country'. But my understanding of anarchism, which might be different from other peoples understanding, and more cultural-specific, in a sense of a post-socialist experience and all, is that anarchism is not opposed to structures and institutions. It is the nature of structure/institution that concerns an anarchist. Is it democratic, or directly democratic, is it hierarchical or less hierarchical. For me, anarchism is a form of organization, networked, decentralized, democratic. I am all for democratic and free institutions that make for a democratic, free society. I am new at wikipedia, but this is why I decided to join. My impression is that wikipedia is a decentralized, networked, democratic project. I was very influenced by Grubacic and Graeber (and Milstein) who are writing about anarchism from this pro-institutional, pro-democratic perspective. There are some newer anarchists who are against everything, all structures and communities, but that is not my thing. Many anarchists I know are very pro-institutional.Bobmarley13 (talk) 03:25, 21 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment. Reviewing the activity of the article creator, Skomorokh, I see his original intention of steering this article clear of original research, and unverifiable sources. It seems that after he stopped maintaining it, several editors began "enhancing" the article with unhelpful, but perhaps will intentioned additions. I note that the AfD nominator, Bobmarley13, is among these, and in a further display of misunderstanding, as brought this editor to AfD despite not actually desiring to delete it. The nominator simply wishes to encourage a process of consensus towards an end he(?) favors. AfD is not clean up. AfD is not arbitration. AfD is not the appropriate space for this nomination. In the future, I hope the nominator will not nominate articles for deletion after having himself taken part in the corruption of the article.--Cast (talk) 23:58, 26 December 2009 (UTC)


 * agreed. but it wasnt me. i am not the AfD nominator for this one. Bobmarley13 (talk) 16:38, 27 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Pardon, I apologize profusely. I completely misread the nominator entry due to the absence of a "Keep" notice preceding your commentary. --Cast (talk) 03:05, 2 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep Though I am unversed in the subject matter, I can accept in complete good faith that Skomorokh, an administrator with over 50,000,000 edits and over 150 articles created seems to have a pretty good idea of what and why a subject is notable enough for Wikipedia.  I also accept in good faith that the nominator might not have been aware of this.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 03:47, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The person who originates an article is not a criteria for notability. MarkNau (talk) 04:34, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I am admittedly unable to knowledgably pass judgement on this article's content. Per WP:AGF, I believe I am allowed to accept that a senior editor and admin with 50 thousand edits and 156 created articles pretty much knows what is notable and what is not before he authors a Wikipedia article, and that he would not have wasted his time on something non-notable.  WP:AGF allows that I may show confidence ijn his knowledge and understanding of WP:N and bow to his expertise as editor, admin, and long-time contributor to the project. User:Skomorokh has a well-deserved reputation as a contributor, so I can easily consider that fact when weighing the value of his contribution. After all, its not as if he had only been here a few months or had less than 200 edits. We'd all do well to emulate his efforts at improving the project. Thank you.   Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 06:04, 21 December 2009 (UTC)


 * weak Keep when dealing with unfamiliar fields, I do to a very considerable extent accept the judgment of Wikipedians I know to be good editors of long standing  who do work regularly in the subject, whether they comment here or write the article. His principal English language book,  has indeed been reviewed, & he has severa larticles in anthologies. The ones not in English I cannot judge. but several American libraries have them.    DGG ( talk ) 05:44, 21 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep As I think removing the article would not benefit wikipedia's readers. (But this is true of many articles, particularly of noted academics, that are deleted). Grubacic seems to me notable within US (and perhaps Yugoslav) anarchism. But we do not seem to have any guidelines to help us in this area of fringe political propagandists/commentators. Most of the evidence seems to me to be is self propaganda, self published bloggish type things and things published by involved niche publishers which the author is connected with. But this is likely to be the case whereever an activist who is involved with pushing his views is concerened. Despite the fact that Wikipedia may be being used as part of this agenda (and I think the tone - and the relationship between one of the article's main editors and the article's subject lend support to this view) this is not justification for deletion - rather the article needs in my view modification. I think it needs to be given a more neutral tone.  Also many of the cited sources did not seem to support the claims being made. I myself have been "warned off" from improving the article.  Finally I think it is the role as a propaganda or view pusher that he is known and the using the books for notability should be in this way rather than as if they were academic books since he might then be judged according to our very harsh academic criteria. Best wishes (Msrasnw (talk) 09:34, 21 December 2009 (UTC))
 * The book Wobblies & Zapatistas: Conversations on Anarchism, Marxism and Radical History has been reviewed here: Anarchist Studies, 2009 by Jun, Nathan. This includes the potentially useful quote "Andrej Grubacic, a younger intellectual who is esteemed in anarchist circles but not as well known outside of them". The journal Anarchist Studies has a page and so does it's editor Ruth Kinna (Msrasnw (talk) 13:01, 21 December 2009 (UTC))


 * Neutral but leaning toward delete per Msrasnw, for now. Yes I said per editor who voted keep. S/he stated it perfectly in my opinion; "Most of the evidence seems to me to be is self propaganda, self published bloggish type things and things published by involved niche publishers which the author is connected with." and "Despite the fact that Wikipedia may be being used as part of this agenda (and I think the tone - and the relationship between one of the article's main editors and the article's subject lend support to this view)" I do believe this justifies deletion. Firstly, subject is not Croatian, he is Serbian, thus mis-placed in this deletion sorting. The sources listed as the one with most weight (#6 and #18) claim they are major Serbian newspapers - NOT SO. These are diaspora publications in Canada, and such publications by Balkan emigrants in diaspora are not very independent and reliable. Also, there are obvious COI issues by editor BobMarley who has contributed nothing to the project except this article since July of 2008. Article subject may have great ideas and theories, and I would bet anything he will become notable in the future. However, that time is not now, and this article would only serve to artifically inflate notability of subject prematurely. Turqoise127 (talk) 18:56, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

you are mistaken there turqoise. what you read as diaspora papers are reprints from glas javnosti, a journal that has a contract with toronto papers. glas javnosti is a major serbian daily paper. i repeatedly said that grubacic is from serbia, not croatia, and that his relevance is of an anarchist, not an academic. i might be new to wikipedia, but that should not affect this article (i am not its maker). i do want to make the effort of getting more actively interested and making entry pages of my own. back to the facts: grubacic is a well known anarchist, not a well known academic, so we should keep this entry. most of the well known anarchists, if not all of them, are fringe authors publishing for small anarchist press. that does not make them not worthy or notable. best wishes, Bobmarley13 (talk) 19:44, 21 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment. I am not disposed to accept the unsupported opinion of any editor, no matter how distinguished. In view of the large amount of political POV pushing that this AfD has generated I think that it should be dealt with strictly by the book. It seems that the subject does not meet any of the criteria of WP:Prof. Does he pass on WP:Author, WP:Politician or other criteria? Xxanthippe (talk) 22:57, 21 December 2009 (UTC).

I am skeptical. We are talking about an anarchist author (living anarchist author). Like with most other activists on what someone dismissively called "the fringe," authorship cannot be judged "strictly by the book," i dont think. There must be some flexibility. That is why i kept pointing out to other relevant living anarchist authors. If you take a look at Cindy Milstein entry, or Iain Boal entry, you will see that there is no great monument there. But their influence in anarchist circles is paramount. Grubacic, Graeber, Milstein are authors of the new anarchism concept. There must be a more specific way of dealing with this. Moreover, some people keep addressing anarchism as being somehow the "fringe," but I find this to be profoundly misleading. Anarchism is the very center of global social movements today; this movement is not fringe but a serious counter-hegemonic force to be reckoned with. Another thing is that I believe it is a methodological problem to ask people who do not know anything about the subject matter at hand--anarchism in this case--to respond to contextual relevance of particular subject. I dont know much about physics, I am an international studies major, anarchist and artist. It just doesnt make sense to me that I should impose my own judgment on a subject matter unknown to me. I am not saying that should not be general guidelines. Of course. But there must be some good faith and some flexibility, in leaving the specialists in the field room to decide whats notable and whats not. Hope this make sense. Bobmarley13 (talk) 00:48, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Does not pass WP:Prof. Evidence that subject passes WP:Author or WP:Politician is lacking. Subject appears as fringe political activist who has yet to break through to mainstream notability. One of the many articles created too early. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:10, 23 December 2009 (UTC).


 * Keep "widely cited by their peers or successors"; "The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work" Pohick2 (talk) 23:33, 23 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment/question - I think Pohick (just above) is referring to the guidelines No1 and No3 for notability for creative professionals. Does Grubacic qualify as a creative professional? If so the No.1 "The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by their peers or successors" seems possibly enough to establish notability. But the full text of number 3 reads "The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." And the qualifying "has been the subject of ... " renders no.3 more problematic in my view.  Can we use "creative professional" for an "activist" or an author who is voluntarily doing things rather than doing them just for money - (do we have a creative amateur category?)? Best wishes (Msrasnw (talk) 00:02, 25 December 2009 (UTC))

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tone 15:59, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment good point, walking through the idea - co-creating ...well known work ...that has been the subject...of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews = 2 quoted reviews (WRL & ISR - i could dig up more). Creative professionals = Scientists, academics, economists, professors, authors... now you could argue it's a fringe well known work, but it seems to me he has a body of work in the field sufficient to be notable. Pohick2 (talk) 01:16, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Strong Keep. Sure looks like an encyclopedia article to me - well written, well referenced, well sourced article about someone who has published widely in multiple languages, and is notable within his field.  Edward Vielmetti (talk) 16:13, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment I think we should keep the article but I do not think that it can be legitimately claimed that it is well referenced/sourced. There are lots of references for sure but there are in my view many problems with them. I have raised some of these on the article's talk page to little avail. For example line three states. A partner with Peoples' Global Action and other Zapatista-influenced direct action movements, Grubačić's primary political investment is in Balkan struggles. and this is referenced to "Civilno društvo?", B-92, 9 June 2004. But this is an article by Grubacic that doesn't seem relevant to this sentence. Line two has four references but they don't really seem to me to support that sentence either. (Msrasnw (talk) 21:39, 29 December 2009 (UTC))
 * Comment Thanks Msrasnw; I can't read most of the original documents cited, and so I have to rely on what it looks like it is rather than what it is; I would note however that being published on B92 is a sign that he is part of Balkan politics, in the same way that being having a body of work published by Z Magazine is a sign of being sympathetic with its leftist politics (to grossly oversimplify both media organizations). Edward Vielmetti (talk) 01:12, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * My worry with the article is not with the facts as such just that that the citing and referencing appear almost random and the tone seems to be over-exaggerating his importance. Also references 6 and 7 don't seem to refer to the information in their sentences either! (Msrasnw (talk) 02:50, 30 December 2009 (UTC))
 * please be WP:BOLD, and restate what the sources say. Pohick2 (talk) 03:08, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I think there are similar problems with many of the refs but one example is we have the last sentence in the lead "His affinity towards anarchism arose as a result of his experiences as a member of the Belgrade Libertarian Group that derives from the Yugoslav Praxis experiment." this is then cited to http://www.hour.ca/news/news.aspx?iIDArticle=18381 . This is about Grubacic and Global Balkans nothing about Belgrade Libertarian Group and the  Yugoslav Praxis experiment. It seems to me the sentence has been taken directly from here http://www.pmpress.org/content/article.php?story=andrejgrubacic (but it could be they took it from wikipedia - but it think we plagiarized it from them.)  I am reluctant to edit the page as I have been "warned off" on the talk page by Grubacic's student/research assistant who has been editing the page. (Msrasnw (talk) 03:23, 1 January 2010 (UTC))


 * Comment Apologies for my belated participation here. As far as I as creator of the article am concerned, Michael Q. Schmidt and DGG above have the right idea. Although this is a topic area whose norms and culture are notoriously difficult to translate into the neat academic/commercial/entertainment pigeonholes we find useful as Wikipedians to judge notability, I can confirm that Mr. Grubačić is beyond doubt deserving of an article. Alongside his collaborator David Graeber, he is one of the leading figures in the field of contemporary anarchist scholarship, and is just the sort of neglected topic of real-world significance Wikipedia in general needs more coverage of. As much work as there is to be done on this article, I do not think the encyclopaedia would benefit from its removal. Regards,  Skomorokh   21:44, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Which particular categories of WP notability does the article satisfy? It certainly doesn't satisfy WP:Prof. Does it satisfy WP:Author or WP:Politician? Xxanthippe (talk) 04:32, 1 January 2010 (UTC).


 * Keep. Sure, this is an article that needs some work, but the references seem to support the subject's notability. Honestly, if people simply did away with their "mother tongue" and did everything in English, our job would be much easier. In regards to Xxanthippe's remark, is WP:N not enough, subject is discussed in-depth in a couple of reliable sources? Drmies (talk) 02:27, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Which couple are you referring to? Xxanthippe (talk) 09:39, 2 January 2010 (UTC).


 * Keep - In my opinion, he meets WP:ANYBIO, quite easily, under point number 2: "The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field." Noam Chomsky et al. are enormous figures within current anarchist thought, and he's been involved with him and others, so I'd say that this fellow merits inclusion, at least under ANYBIO.   Cocytus   [»talk«]  20:42, 2 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete - he belongs in showbiz, really.Red Hurley (talk) 21:34, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Do you mind elaborating?  Cocytus   [»talk«]  00:14, 3 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment. This article is being used as a blog for pushing Balkan political POV and is stuffed with irrelevant and superfluous material. It is an abuse of Wikipedia. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:25, 3 January 2010 (UTC).


 * Comment I fear that this above is more a comment on a particular ideology then on the subject himself. I think it would be good to steer clear from attacks against anarchism. You might wish to disagree with anarchism, or you might wish to consider it a fringe politics. I maintain it is neither. But this is not our topic here. As Skomorokh pointed out, Grubacic is one of the principal voices in contemporary anarchist scholarship/activism, together with David Graeber (and, i would add, Cindy Milstein). Arguing against his entry implies an argument against the relevance of contemporary anarchism. And that would be, to my mind, an abuse of wikipedia. We have a comment by Chomsky. We have a comment by Bond. We have comments by Lynd and Graeber. As for participatory economics, Grubacic is one of the translators of the principal parecon work. Participatory Economics, authored by Michael Albert, he toured the Balkans with Albert many times, and is published widely on this topic in local anarchist zines. He also published a parecon book with Albert in one of the local languages.Bobmarley13 (talk) 15:37, 3 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment: I think you put it fairly well Bobmarley. I based my opinion on WP:ANYBIO, which states "The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field."  For me, at least, he meets this designation, as the Chomsky stuff, etc. indicates to me that he is part of the enduring historical record in his field, anarchism.   Cocytus   [»talk«]  15:44, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Comment Thanks. I also want to be fair to Msrasnw, who is saying that there is more work to be done. I apologize if I sounded dismissive in the past. I agree, I am all for refinement, and I think that this should be an ongoing project. In terms of meeting the notability standards in his field, contemporary anarchism, I think that this has been demonstrated beyond any-- reasonable, fair, non-ideological-- discussion.Bobmarley13 (talk) 17:38, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

CommentI think it might be good if someone else who wanted to keep the article went through it and checked the refs and deleted all the inappropriate refs and things that just seem over-exagerating eg 'Together with Robert Posavec, he is responsible for spreading the idea of participatory economics in the Balkans.' - this is referenced to an interview by Michael Albert of Andrej Grubačić in his own organisation's web blog http://www.zcommunications.org/znet/viewArticle/9970 This interview is just Grubacic talking about how he thinks things should be and that he has spoken to some people about it. There is no independent evidence that people have listened and become convinced by his arguments and the ideas have spread. (Msrasnw (talk) 11:58, 3 January 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.