Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Celtic anarchism


 * 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. Stifle (talk) 12:55, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Celtic anarchism

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

Fails WP:ORG "An organization is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources." This article depends upon a mailing list and a website for its sources about the subject, the rest seems to be OR. Doug Weller (talk) 16:18, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom IRK! Leave me a note or two 16:22, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Typing "per nom" is a waste of everyone's time. This is a discussion, not a vote, so do you have anything productive to contribute? the skomorokh  16:26, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Wouldn't it be great if AfDs really weren't votes in any way! Doug Weller (talk) 16:41, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * "Per nom" simply means the user agrees with the nomination as written and supports it. It's not a forbidden phrase by any means, it is widely used and has been for years.  On todays AFDs alone there are a couple dozen "per nom"s.  There is absolutly no reason to target this user and accuse them of "wasting time". Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  16:49, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * It is well understood what it means. The issue Skomorokh is raising is that while "per nom" (WP:PERNOM) is often used, it is not to be encouraged.--Cast (talk) 01:51, 15 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been listed as an Anarchism task force deletion discussion. the skomorokh  16:26, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been listed as an Anarchism task force deletion discussion. the skomorokh  16:26, 14 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete. The article is largely original synthesis, the subject itself a non-notable internet meme. Moreschi (talk) 16:37, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep The topic of anarchism is a subject with such a anti establishment agenda that there is hardly any notable publications that do publish material regarding anarchism. Celtic anarchism is a subject quite known as common knowledge and has been shown in pop-culture such as the movie Arthur, braveheart to a lesser extent, etc. There are other articles that has less reference and this subject is as worthy as any of those to have an article for people to get a better understanding. What would be more productive would be to contribute and enhance the article rather than delete it. What may be preferable is to remove only the parts of people trying to adtop Celtic Anarchism today and talk about it in a historical perspective. Lord Metroid (talk) 18:56, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * but Wikipedia is built on references. Do you have any sources that discuss the Arthur or Braveheart movies in terms of being about "Celtic anarchism" (ahem, king Arthur, wouldn't that be "Celtic monarchism"?). If there aren't any sources, we can't have an article about it. --dab (𒁳) 21:11, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * "The topic of anarchism is a subject with such a anti establishment agenda that there is hardly any notable publications that do publish material regarding anarchism". This is wholly untrue. There is a wealth of academic literature on anarchism, and many articles continue to be published about its various forms. If nothing is published on this, it suggests that it is not notable. Paul B (talk) 22:56, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
 * delete, existence of subject is not established by references. If better references are presented, fair enough. If not, delete away. --dab (𒁳) 21:11, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete OR at present, with the admission there are no specific organisations, there are not likely to be sources. DGG (talk) 00:26, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. This is a jumble of predicable Celticist fantasies, non-sequiturs and extrapolations from a central concept that probably deserves a sentence at most. Paul B (talk) 23:00, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Unverifiable and frankly pretty ridiculous. The claim that "hardly any notable publications that do publish material regarding anarchism" is complete and utter bullshit: there are whole publishers specialising in that topic, not to mention any number of periodicals and so on. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  17:58, 17 October 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.