Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Libcom.org (4th nomination)


 * 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. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:21, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Libcom.org
AfDs for this article:


 * – ( View AfD View log )

Non-notable organization and web site that has already been deleted. See Articles for deletion/Libcom.org (2nd nomination). I haven't seen the deleted article, so am not tagging G5, but probable G5. Also close to A7. Naïve Google search finds two pages of hits on the organization's own web presence, which shows that it exists, then finds a reference to it in Reddit. Duh. No mention of anything since 2015, when the AFD was closed. One of the references is their own web site, and the second one says nothing about them. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:01, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
 * In fact, the second one does have nontrivial coverage of libcom. The ref bokk (a 2018 collection) contains an article "Rethinking networked solidarity" by Sky Croeser which says "The main focus of this research is on Libcom (discussed in more details below), a non-corporate site." Lembit Staan (talk) 04:58, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
 * For further context (from a cursory read) the Sky Croeser chapter in Social Media Materialities and Protest (Routledge) goes into depth exploring the extent to which Libcom can be considered a social media site, as well as the dynamics within Libcom between contributors / forum participants and the Libcom collective/administrators, and tries to assess the extent to which Libcom "facilitates solidarity efforts" more widely in comparison to standard forms of social media (specifically Facebook) using debates around the struggles in Kurdish Syria as an example. LittleDwangs (talk) 21:27, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:01, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:01, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:01, 28 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete and salt. There comes a point when recreation of such content can no longer be seen as an effort to improve the encyclopedic content of this project. BD2412  T 04:06, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep I never saw the actual article since it was deleted, but I read the 2nd AFD. No one provided any sources of coverage. I attempted to change that and also what policies apply here. I kept the article short, anticipating an AFD, so I’ll make my case. Libcom.org is an important website amongst anarchists and academics and is reflected in academic literature with 3,500+ mentions in Google Scholar. More importantly, I've enclosed a chapter by Croeser, that extensively examines the usage/online behaviours of users on Libcom.org across 14 page chapter.
 * I would argue this passes WP:BASIC and WP:WEBCRIT as it has a demonstrable influence in the field of anarchism, including academia, and multiple independent citations. Shushugah (talk) 04:16, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't see where you see 3.500 mentions of libcom in google scholar. Instead I see libcom.org merely indicated as a publisher, i.e., nothing about libcom itself. Lembit Staan (talk) 04:58, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
 * To be clear we're in agreement. And numbers themselves don't formulate the basis of anything. I was stating that SKYISBLUE, but clearly people then and now were not convinced, so I am attempting to provide more coverage. For the vast majority of Anarchist academics, they're more than happy to host/write on Libcom.org, even writing about Libcom.org on there, but I empathize why this is not independent for English Wikipedia.
 * Because Libcom.org itself is a host/website, searching for articles about Libcom has proved challenging, but not impossible. For others curious, I've searched in google "libcom.org website -site:libcom.org" to filter out Libcom.org posts themselves. Shushugah (talk) 10:00, 28 March 2021 (UTC)


 * delete. no multiple independent coverage. See my comments elsewhere. Lembit Staan (talk) 04:58, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete and salt per nom and lacks independent coverage.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 05:39, 28 March 2021 (UTC)#
 * Keep This is absolutely dumb. Probably the most well known long running anarchist website online. SP00KY  talk  08:19, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Not as dumb as you think. And the goal of this discussion is precisely to prove that you are right  or wrong. Lembit Staan (talk) 19:26, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Nah mate, it's an absoloute joke. Libcom, easily one of the biggest anarchist spaces on the internet and a major repository for anarchists works in the english language and i bet 'dollars to doughnuts' you could not find a serious anarchist academic that does not see it as such, and it should be deleted? And yet even most marginal random anarchist writers get pages at times just because they were in a newspaper? Let us not be so dishonest to each other, there is not 'proving' anything because policy can be wielded to suit any position you people want it to.. I've read enough of these painful things already to see this, so.. What is the actual downsides to having this page? SP00KY  talk  08:21, 29 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment Responding with some more sources: Ephemeral Journal paper on Music and Anarchism, writes a short paragraph reviewing 163 posts made on LibCom.org, Zones of Proletarian Development refers to LibCom as "A more comprehensive list of autonomous libertarian activities which resist 'intrusive intervention' can be found on the excellent Libertarian Communist website https://libcom.org " , combined with the most extensive source (14 pages by Sky Croeser) at "Rethinking networked solidarity" makes this AFD from past ones, where at best LibCom had cursory reference/mention (which I've mentioned as well). This would not pass WP:GNG, but does pass WP:WEB Shushugah (talk) 10:14, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
 * reviewing 163 posts made on LibCom.org - not about libcom, also very weak WP:NWEB (trivial: no analysis of content in general, reviewing 163 posts - a footnote that summarizes the content of a thread about music ). Zones of Proletarian Development - libcom is mentioned in passing as a publisher, no substantial info. Lembit Staan (talk) 19:12, 28 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment This discussion is in danger in falling into a perennial confusion between importance and notablility (per WP rules). For comparison: some time ago I have have learned that certain plant manufactured over 90% of some kind of important resin (dont remember which, say polyurethane) in Europe. Clearly, an important one. But searching high and low, I could not find any info about it beyond name and location. It was not even part of a public company. Lembit Staan (talk) 19:12, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment Libcom.org is a frustrating website to find suitable sources for - in part because its articles, archived materials, and (occasionally) forums are used so widely in citations in journals, books and websites, meaning results discussing Libcom itself are drowned out by Libcom citations. Similarly the site is mentioned in 524 English Wikipedia articles. There are some more passing mentions, such as in The Palgrave Handbook of Anarchism where Libcom is described as "a hub for libertarian communist ideas" (Chapter 5) or in this journal article where in an overview of contemporary British anarchism Franks and Kinna (both leading British anarchist academics) list it as "Libcom.org : primary resource for UK anarchists : lively forums, news, blogs, information and support and an extensive library". There's are also a number of articles slagging off Libcom, such as this one published in The Brooklyn Rail. LittleDwangs (talk) 19:40, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
 * frustrating website to find suitable sources -- yep; see my comment above. Everybody uses, but nobody cares. Lembit Staan (talk) 20:53, 28 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep as an influential website for a wide segment of the far-left, I am surprised that there isn't more in-depth coverage of libcom.org itself. However, after examining the above sources posted above, it is clear that there are enough to write a WP:BASIC article on the topic.--User:Namiba 00:23, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep: there is some coverage of the website, like Sky Croeser's chapter and The Brooklyn Rail article. However, I think it's more important to see how the website is treated as a publication by those in the relevant subject area—similar to WP:JOURNALCRIT—and in this area we can see with a search on Proquest in The Wikipedia Library or JSTOR or with a Google News search (tag with "-site:libcom.org") that there are dozens to hundreds of meaningful citations in respectable works to libcom.org as a source. I'm not really sure what sort of WP:BEFORE search yielded only a primary source and a Reddit post. — Bilorv ( talk ) 01:05, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep as I believe the basics for establishing notability have been met for what is a significant and widely cited anarchist website (possibly the most significant anarchist website out there?). Definitely don't salt as the sole issue has been the difficulty identifying sufficient suitable sources to meet the notability criteria, and that the article is otherwise suitable for Wikipedia. Over time additional sources will likely appear. LittleDwangs (talk) 16:52, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep per Bilorv's points + UCS; other than marxists.org there's few other sources internationally in English that match the ubiquity of libcom.org with regards to left politics/history in general. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 11:08, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep per Bilorv, I find the analogy to WP:JOURNALCRIT to be appropriate. — Alalch Emis (talk) 03:10, 11 April 2021 (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.