Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kevin Carson


 * 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. (non-admin closure) Erik9 (talk) 00:03, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Kevin Carson

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

Non-notable blogger. After a quick search on google, google news and google books, I wasn't able to find anything to suggest that he meets WP:BIO. Bob A (talk) 16:38, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 24 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep clearly notable as indicated in article introduction. N1h1l (talk) 05:15, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep: Carson's work has essentially become synonymous with anarchist mutualism in the present day. Searches on the web suggest that Carson is more often associated with mutualism than many of its major historical figures, including Benjamin R. Tucker. Only Proudhon is more firmly fixed, in that part of popular consciousness that cares about the varieties of anarchism, to the notion of mutualism. The JLS issue was the first issue of an English-Language scholarly periodical ever dedicated to a single mutualist. Etc. Libertatia (talk) 07:44, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Mutualism itself is a very small movement. The relevant question is whether history will remember him as a prominent figure in anarchism, or as just another blogger. So far there doesn't seem to be any scholarly or mainstream coverage of him, apart from some brief references in the anarchist FAQ. Bob A (talk) 16:57, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, mutualism is the oldest of the anarchist schools, and its revival is certainly non-trivial. The JLS issue is a significant scholarly acknowledgment of his importance. Carson, btw, is an author and a scholar, not "just another blogger," and the judgment of history is not something that we can, or should, bother ourselves with much. Entries on living scholars, particularly of those working on the edges of academic discourses, who are nonetheless heavily cited on Wikipedia, allow Wikipedia users to easily determine the nature of the sources, and make their own judgments. Their inclusion quite simply makes Wikipedia a better resource. In a field like the serious study of anarchism, where as significant amount of the work is currently being done outside academic circles (as a look at the membership of the Anarchist Studies Association pretty clearly shows) it seems ridiculous to exclude figures like Carson, particularly as he is as high-profile, generally speaking, as almost any of his academic colleagues. You have recently targeted a number of anarchist scholars' pages for deletion, so perhaps your concern is the general notability of anarchist studies. But the field exists, and it is currently informing the content of anarchist articles on Wikipedia. It seems like a no-brainer to include pages for its most prominent figures. Libertatia (talk) 18:12, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The JLS was a fringe liberal journal, not a well known, mainstream, or even anarchist journal, and thus not a reliable source for establishing notability. Carson may be high-profile among his "colleagues", but I doubt whether he is in absolute terms. If Carson is so important to mutualism, then maybe this article should be redacted and merged into the article for mutualism. For the record, this is the first article of an anarchist whose deletion I've suggested. Bob A (talk) 19:14, 24 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep: Carson is the author of two substantial books and was recently described (by someone other than me) as "the Marx of the left-libertarian movement." I believe, though I'm not certain, that I first discovered Carson's work by reading the Wikipedia article about him. But I'm not clear why this is a useful discussion. Someone opted to go to the trouble to prepare a lengthy article about Carson. Storage space for what is largely ASCII text is hardly at a premium. So debates about notability just seem pointless: Wikipedia provides useful opportunities for people, institutions, and topics important to people in all sorts of niche communities. If they're not important to others, so what? I've learned a great deal by discovering what other people regard as interesting on Wikipedia. If information is false, delete it. But if Sally Anderson from Duluth wants to post a Wikipedia article about her brother-in-law, Ralph, and his performance decades ago on a fourth-grade spelling bee, who cares? No one who doesn't search for Ralph will likely find him, unless someone links to him--and, if someone does, all the more reason for the article to be there. People post articles, in general, because they care about things; I think we should be very, very unwilling to second-guess them and determine that what they care about doesn't belong here. garychartier (talk) 06:44, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Inclusionism isn't justification for keeping an article. Bob A (talk) 17:16, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Nor is deletionism a reason to destroy it. The notability guidelines are suggestions to help you determine notability, not policy.   D r e a m Focus  01:07, 25 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep As of the arguments above. The article looks fine to me, quite thorough, I see no reason to delete it.  This person does appear to be quite notable in the anarchists circles.   D r e a m Focus  01:07, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Carson is clearly not a major figure, but does appear to be sufficiently notable for inclusion in wikipedia. The article is far from perfect, but it makes an effort to be balanced and appears to be making progress. Shanata (talk) 05:45, 25 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Weak keep. He just sneaks in, I think. Forget the red-herring inclusionism debate above: there's just enough sourcing and notability. He was namechecked by the SF author Ken MacLeod in an interview: "Kevin Carson, in particular, has done some fascinating work on the interface of the free-market libertarian and the libertarian-socialist positions".. Here's another critique of his work by a libertarian; the author is a Conservative Party councillor: Fences and windows (talk) 21:44, 25 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep: He has been the subject of an article in Journal of Libertarian Studies. Article was written by Walter Block. I believe that because of that he meets basic notability criteria. -- Vision  Thing -- 19:45, 26 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I dispute that justification on the basis that the JLS itself is barely notable. Bob A (talk) 20:04, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

It seems to me that you have no conception of anarchist intellectual debate and discussion. This single person has revived the philosophy of mutualism. There are many obscure philosophies and philosophers on wikipedia. There is nobody else in anarchism contributing as much to individualist anarchism as Carson. In fact, there isn't much of anything being put out for individualist anarchism of the classical variety at least. I really don't understand the argument that JLS isn't notable. Where do you draw the line? It is a journal put together by fairly well known libertarians. George Reisman's attack should also make him notable. Put in a search for mutualism in google and Carson's on the first page.Citizen Anarch (talk) 10:40, 29 May 2009 (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.