Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Omniarchy


 * 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. The article fails to show that there is an agreed on meaning for the term, or that the particular definition espoused therein is notable, or indeed verifiable. The sources in the article appear to fail WP:RS. While the nominator withdrew, there were other good-faith !votes. Xymmax So let it be written   So let it be done  05:29, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Omniarchy

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

This article purports to be explaining an existing concept that might be comparable to anarchy, democracy, etc., but from the author's comment at User talk:Shicoco, "Omniarchy is a project of Freehold Technologies, a not-for-profit foundation, and the source for the Omniarchy article is their website. There is no possibility of non-neutrality, because the article is simply a description of their way of life, with no approval nor disapproval stated nor implied." So this is some organization's name for a philosophy they espouse, which means pertinent notability considerations apply, and I'm not sure this is notable, even after running a Google search and finding a very few, heavily replicated, hits that provide no more than a dictionary definition. Also, the author seems to be taking an ownership stance regarding this article. —Largo Plazo (talk) 16:18, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

'''I apologize for my insufficient research. I took the editor's own stance to mean that he had written the article in question. I withdraw my nomination without prejudice; it may well need to go to Wiktionary anyway. —Largo Plazo (talk) 17:00, 12 October 2008 (UTC)'''
 * Comment The nomination is factually incorrect and possibly a red flag. The article in question was created not by who made the quoted comment and tried to introduce a 17k original research essay, but by . If I replaced the George W. Bush article with a little essay of my own, that would not be grounds to delete the article, as the subject is notable and worthy of inclusion. The article should be judged on the merits of the topic, not on the merits of its contributors. Please refactor the nomination.  the skomorokh  16:23, 12 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Provisional delete for my part, as I cannot find enough significant coverage of the topic in reliable sources to verify a basic introduction to the topic. I am happy to retract this !vote if acceptable sources are forthcoming. the skomorokh  16:31, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Alternatively, I support a transwiki to Wiktionary, if it is appropriate for inclusion there. the skomorokh  16:44, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment This seems like a situation to transwiki to en.wiktionary. The Aldrich dicdef is solid enough, but past that I don't see reliable sources that demonstrate enough cultural notability for an encyclopedia article.  The Alex Peak essay seems self-published—is that a correct assertion?  This term only seems important as a sort of straw man for comparison with anarchy, so it can be said that "what you're afraid of is omniarchy, not friendly ol' anarchy". But it seems to have no wider cultural notability. Darkspots (talk) 16:39, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Agree with all of the above, with the note that the term "omniarchy", from a quick look around Google Books/Scholar, seems to have been invented independently several times with differing meanings. the skomorokh  16:44, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, I just looked at the Alex Peak essay again and he implies very strongly that he coined the term, a couple months ago.... Darkspots (talk) 16:48, 12 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Merge (editor has changed their mind, see below -  the skomorokh  22:58, 13 October 2008 (UTC)) I believe this article should be merged with anarchy. As said above, there are not enough sources for a basic introduction to the topic. So, if everyone else agrees, a small section in the anarchy article can be created for omniarchy, and omniarchy can be redirected. The anarchy article already says something about omniarchy. Shicoco (talk) 17:08, 12 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete – I searched, but couldn't find any sources that I could use to support the notion that it's a notable topic; so unless someone comes up with something, I'd conclude it's not. Dicklyon (talk) 17:09, 12 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment Actually, omniarchy seems to be a form of anarchy Shicoco (talk) 17:13, 12 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Red Herring. The article that started this discussion has been edited out, so that comments here are mainly about a different article.  That article, prior to the edits that started this discussion, violates several policies, so I stand for its removal.  The edits that started this discussion need reviewed before rational comment can be given.  I will revert this page to include those edits so that editors can weigh in on the real matter under discussion, rather than this red herring. RipplingBeast (talk) 18:02, 12 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Reversion Complete The page has been restored to the form that started the controversy, and can now be fairly judged. This is not tendentious editing; that NEVER consists of adding material; see policy.  Nor does it give undue weight, for it does not compare views.  I rise for inclusion; leave it alone.  It is a factual description of a method of governance, makes no comparisons, is properly cited, and passes the notability test far better than a huge proportion of Wikipedia's articles.RipplingBeast (talk) 18:02, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * How is it properly cited per WP:CITE - where are the references in reliable sources? How does it meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines? More notable than other articles is not a valid argument. the skomorokh  18:06, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * It was copied from this webpage, as stated in the article (I assume that RipplingBeast owns the copyright to that text). Since the website is not a reliable source it can only be considered original research and has to be removed. -- Amalthea Talk 18:38, 12 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Why are my posts in this discussion being deleted? End this practice.  Now. It is not copied from a webpage, it is properly excerpted and re-written to be an encyclopedia article on a method of governance, to expand the entry by a sockpuppet (which was repeatedly endorced by this crowd) and is not in any way original research.  The "thing" exists, the entry is factual, and cited.  RipplingBeast (talk) 18:52, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * All three of your comments are still here, no one has removed anything, please check the page history. Also, please read our guideline on WP:reliable sources to find out why this website isn't one, and why it can't be a source for any facts in an encyclopaedia. Also note that if your are not Joshua Daniels then this is a very clear copyright violation: large parts from the text of that website have been copy&pasted, e.g. the paragraph beginning with "All Freeholders have a seat on the High Council". --  Amalthea Talk 19:06, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Purge the "page cache'' for this page. You'lll see them. It's your PC, not Wiki.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 23:06, 12 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete. There is definitely no significant coverage of that concept, and I can't extract a clear definitions from the book sources: There's "Fourier's harmonial omniarchy", "Hegelian omniarchy" (Hegel?), and the one in the Aldrich book. The latter only says "omniarchy: all things; universal rule" by the way, the rest of the definition in our article seems to be OR, too (and I won't even mention the bit about the Joker). Not enough verifiable material to transwiki, not enough to merge, and certainly not enough to keep an article about it. -- Amalthea Talk 18:56, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete as Original research, if one cares to dignify it as such. . It is "a factual description of a method for government" documented only from their own website, and noticed nowhere else. It is highly structured, and not anarchy, and it wouldn't be of sufficient note to be included in that article anyway. DGG (talk) 02:29, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment I have looked up omniarchy on dictionary.com, thefreedictionary.com, as well as Merriem-Webster Online; omniarchy does not appear in any, and it is therefore my conclusion that it is merely a made-up word. Here is an excerpt from what Wikipedia is not regarding made up terms: ...it is not notable enough to be Wikipedia article material until multiple, independent, and reliable secondary sources report on it. A mere 2,140 results is fetched by Google on this term, and there are no reliable resources on this at all. This article meets all criteria for deletion, therefore, I am changing my vote to delete. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shicoco (talk • contribs) 22:55, 13 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.