Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anti-authoritarian

 This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. -- BD2412 talk 04:49, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

Anti-authoritarian
This is a word and so it just amounts to some kind of dictionary definition. I don't think it could properly be an encyclopedia article as there is no such recognized general philosophy by that name that I'm aware of. Wikipedia has a policy against making articles that just serve as a definition of a term. RJII 20:49, 10 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete RJII 20:52, 10 August 2005 (UTC) (initiator of vote for deletion)
 * Keep, as this is an accepted sociopolitical philosophy in most academic studies in that field. --Frag
 * Really? Care to cite any such studies that regard it as such? RJII 20:31, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. It was a style of parenting popular in the '70s that destroyed a whole generation. JFW | T@lk  22:07, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
 * A joke, right? RJII 20:32, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. This looks as if it could become a useful article. I've put a philo-stub on it Tonywalton 23:42, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Though maybe it should be moved to Anti-authoritarianism Tonywalton


 * Speedy keep This is more than a dicdef now; and it does not include Dr. Spock yet. It would be policy to move it to a noun. Septentrionalis 02:13, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep I don't really understand why there's a VfD. Saswann 15:45, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Because it just amounts to a definition of a word. There is a Wikipedia policy against that. Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary
 * There is a Wikipedia policy against articles that can't be more than a definition of a word, this is a stub that can easily grow into something signifigant Saswann 15:52, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't see how. First of all it had an unsourced definition that someone just made up. I just replaced it with a sourced one. But, I had to look up its negative (authoritarianism) to derive it. I don't think there's any such philosophy. RJII 16:44, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Agree with RJII; there is no recognised body of philosophical or politico-theoretical work that scholars call "anti-authoritarianism" as a recognised, classifiable subject. Dottore So 21:54, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. The concept of anti-authoritarianism is well-established, and the definition can easily be expanded to an article. Santtus 22:48, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I'll believe it when it happens. RJII 23:22, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Authoritarian. If it can be expanded to be worth an article of its own, it can be done perfectly well as part of that larger subject, and if/when it becomes a significant enough subject in itself to merit splitting off into its own article again, it'll be clearer to everyone then. -- Antaeus Feldspar 00:19, 13 August 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.