Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anarchism and anarcho-capitalism (2nd nomination)

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
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. Rough consensus is that the topic is not necessarily a content fork, and that its essay-like characteristics are fixable. Regards, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 02:26, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Anarchism and anarcho-capitalism

AfDs for this article:
Anarchism and anarcho-capitalism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Essay. Inherently POV in that it takes the position that "anarcho-capitalism" is a form of anarchism, which not everyone would accept. Pointless in that the similarities and differences between any two given ideolyogies are not a suitable subject for an article - discussing each ideology properly, in their own separate articles, would make that unnecessary. In this case, any useful content could go in anarchism and anarcho-capitalism articles respectively. UserVOBO (talk) 02:24, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have struck the POV part in recognition of the fact that POV problems in an article are not a reason for deletion. The other reasons - that this is an essay, that it violates WP:POVFORK, and that any appropriate content belongs in other articles - stand in my view. UserVOBO (talk) 23:11, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been listed as an Anarchism task force deletion discussion.--Cast (talk) 22:12, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is interesting that you say the article "takes the position that 'anarcho-capitalism' is a form of anarchism", and the last deletion nomination said, "The whole purpose is try to distinguish anarcho-capitalism as something other than a legitimate form of anarchism." I think this is an excellent example that if you can't tell which POV is being advanced, perhaps it really is NPOV. Tb (talk) 18:01, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm judging the POV issue from the article as it is written now. What someone else thought about how it was written four years ago has nothing to do with it. In any case, the problem isn't simply the particular POV being advocated by the article, but that the fact that it does not deal with an encyclopedic subject. Discussing "similarities and differences" between anarchism and anarcho-capitalism in the abstract is not the same the thing as discussing the debates between the proponents of these ideologies, the alleged importance of which appears to be the main argument for keeping the article. The arguments for keeping the article look like a case of WP:ILIKEIT. UserVOBO (talk) 20:47, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • You misunderstood my point, I think. A deletion request needs to be about the topic, not about the particular way it's currently addressed. The later is simply a content dispute, and the article should be improved. The deletion request makes sense only if no possible improvement could be made. To delete an article as a POV problem, one needs to argue that it the article would necessarily advance that POV, no matter how it's written. That your predecessor thought the opposite as you, suggests that the topic is not inherently POV in that it takes the position that .... If anything, the particular treatment has a POV problem, in which case you should address it on the talk page of the article. Tb (talk) 21:46, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is a side issue. The essential problem with the article is that "Anarchism and anarcho-capitalism" is not an encyclopedic subject, since the relevant content belongs in the anarchism and anarcho-capitalism articles. I'm not seeing any convincing counter-arguments here. UserVOBO (talk) 23:01, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - "This article discusses similarities and differences between anarcho-capitalism and other types of anarchism." It's an essay, and therefore not encyclopedic content. Also issues of WP:OR, WP:SYN, and content forking from related articles. - DustFormsWords (talk) 03:00, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Treating anarcho-capitalism as a form of anarchism is a common practice. There are secondary sources to support it, and the alternative keeps us embroiled in various editing wars. In this case, the "similarities and differences" are the terms of one of the most important theoretical debates within anarchist/libertarian circles in recent decades. If this is going to be deleted we need a better reason. Libertatia (talk) 06:09, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The problem is that of its nature it must be WP:SYN. The standard approach would be to have articles anarchism and anarcho-capitalism, well-describe the concepts at those articles, and let readers draw their own conclusions as to the similarities or differences. Wikipedia doesn't generally engage in weighing various philosophies against each other in dedicated articles. See also WP:NOTTEXTBOOK: "Wikipedia is an encyclopedic reference, not a textbook. The purpose of Wikipedia is to present facts, not to teach subject matter." - DustFormsWords (talk) 06:21, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • What this misses is that writers using those labels themselves discuss exactly this question, as such. It is not as if we were comparing two things which are not much compared in the literature. Unlike the "communism and conservatism" notion, it is an ongoing topic of considerable importance, about which there is lots of 2ary literature we can and do cite. This makes it far more similar to Filioque than to the hypothetical communism and conservatism. Tb (talk) 18:44, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • What your argument misses is that this doesn't create a need for a separate article. Deal with it in the anarchism article, the anarcho-capitalism article, and in criticism of anarcho-capitalism, to the extent that its importance warrants. Note that while Nazism and communism are much compared, there is no Nazism and communism article. Again, while there are ongoing disputes about whether sex-positive feminism is real feminism (feminists opposed to pornography have often argued that it isn't), there's no derivative article on Sex positive feminism and feminism, and nor should there be. UserVOBO (talk) 20:30, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The similarities and differences between two distinct ideologies would not be an encyclopedic subject no matter what the ideologies in question were. How about an article on Communism and conservatism, discussing the various ways in which communism and conservatism are similar to, and different from, each other? That would make about as much sense as this article. There is absolutely nothing special about anarchism and anarcho-capitalism that gives them the right to special treatment - I'm sure that what conservatives think of communism, and vice versa, is also pretty important, but it doesn't deserve an article to itself. UserVOBO (talk) 07:17, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, what is "special" about anarchism and anarcho-capitalism is the fact that an NPOV approach does not allow us to simply treat them as either "distinct ideologies" or shades of the same one. This entry is essentially a long explanatory footnote to the various other entries where the question has been set aside in the interest of peaceful editing. The rationales for deletion seem dependent on non-NPOV assumptions, which, for me at least, substantially undercuts the other appeals to "standard approaches." Libertatia (talk) 07:46, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If this article is "essentially a long explanatory footnote to the various other entries where the question has been set aside in the interest of peaceful editing" that in itself makes it completely unacceptable and a violation of NPOV. The purpose of Wikipedia isn't to take sides in disputes between rival ideologies - "explaining" the issue by not setting aside the question of whether anarchism and anarcho-capitalism are variants of the same ideology or not does exactly that. UserVOBO (talk) 07:49, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry. Couldn't follow the grammar or the logic in that response. But the procedural issue is this: the citable sources allow no clear factual distinction between anarcho-capitalism and (other forms of) anarchism. There are, however, plenty of sources willing to weigh in, in a presumably scholarly manner, on the distinction or lack thereof. NPOV is no guide here: either a choice is made about anarcho-capitalism's relation to anarchism, based on sources that don't allow a NPOV choice, or an attempt is made to address the issue (which at this point is a procedural/definitional issue arising from Wikipedia's own somewhat flawed policies) and it is left alone elsewhere. The present arrangement developed out of endless edit wars and attempts to apply Wikipedia policy. Faced with positions "that not everyone would accept," Wikipedia is short on elegant solutions. This one is inelegant, but useful, since it addresses the debate. And there is nothing inherently "non-encyclopedic" about addressing a significant debate. Libertatia (talk) 18:11, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Then permit me to explain myself. "A long explanatory footnote to the various other entries where the question has been set aside in the interest of peaceful editing" is unacceptable because NPOV applies everywhere and equally on Wikipedia. All articles have to present the issue as reliable sources present it - if they disagree, then we say that they disagree, which in principle ought to be perfectly simple. If there are editors who find NPOV difficult to follow, that is unfortunate, but it doesn't change the principle at stake, or make "a long explanatory footnote to the various other entries" (in plainer language, an essay) appropriate. Your comment above seems to amount to a contorted attempt to say that NPOV should be disregarded. To say that "NPOV is no guide" is to abandon NPOV, and that won't do, will it? UserVOBO (talk) 20:16, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You have misunderstood Libertatia. He did not say to abandon NPOV, he said that NPOV doesn't help the particular question. Of course we should hold to it. What he is saying is that there are plenty of sources for the dispute, on one side or another, and the sources need to be presented. Either we pick a side (which we can't do), or we address the issue. If we address the issue, we either do so once or many times. If we do so once, we need an article to do it in. It is an independent topic, which scholars can and do address in itself, and which is quite adequately sourced, and not as WP:SYN, as I argue below. Tb (talk) 21:52, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's a somewhat awkward and muddled argument. If there is a disagreement among reliable sources about whether anarcho-capitalism is a kind of anarchism that can be mentioned separately in the anarchism and anarcho-capitalism articles. It certainly should be mentioned there, if the articles are to be written properly, not shifted into a separate article. The mere fact that whether anarcho-capitalism is a form of anarchism or not can be formulated as a distinct issue doesn't mean that an article devoted to this question should be established. UserVOBO (talk) 23:14, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think anyone is proposing not to discuss it in Anarchism, but rather, to follow the usual practice of having a brief discussion at Anarchism and Anarcho-capitalism, with a "see also" pointing to Anarchism and anarcho-capitalism. Your proposal is instead to have the fuller discussion in both Anarchism and Anarcho-capitalism, which is an outright content fork. Tb (talk) 23:42, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but what you're saying is completely irrelevant. This is an essay about the differences between anarchism and anarcho-capitalism. It's not, except incidentally and secondarily, a discussion about the disputes between self-identified anarchists over whether anarcho-capitalism is a genuine form of anarchism (which probably wouldn't be a notable subject anyway). I've tried to explain carefully that Libertatia's arguments for keeping this appeal to precisely the reasoning that WP:POVFORK rejects, but both you and he have dodged this issue. UserVOBO (talk) 22:52, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is not WP:SYN, the references include many things which do in fact address specifically the topic of the relation between anarchism and anarcho-capitalism. Note that my own opinion is that anarcho-capitalism is not a form of anarchism, though the nominator says that the article presumes the POV that it is. If anything, the problem is only in the lead where it says "other types of anarchism", but this is a small problem with the article. There is nothing POV about having the article, even if some phrasing in it could be better improved to be NPOV. Moreover, this is the second deletion nomination. Can we have an explanation for why the previous consensus should not be respected? What has changed in the past few years to make the article worse than it was then? The proposal of DustFormsWords that the relevant material should be in multiple other articles is exactly the reason the article is necessary: to have in one common place exactly the material which would otherwise be necessarily forked. Tb (talk) 17:59, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • That there is a dispute over whether anarcho-capitalism is a kind of anarchism or not does not create a need for a separate article such as this, which isn't even about the dispute per se, but about someone's opinions as to the similiarites and differences between the two ideologies. Regarding forks, let me quote WP:POVFORK: 'In contrast, POV forks generally arise when contributors disagree about the content of an article or other page. Instead of resolving that disagreement by consensus, another version of the article (or another article on the same subject) is created to be developed according to a particular point of view. This second article is known as a "POV fork" of the first, and is inconsistent with Wikipedia policies. The generally accepted policy is that all facts and major points of view on a certain subject should be treated in one article. As Wikipedia does not view article forking as an acceptable solution to disagreements between contributors, such forks may be merged, or nominated for deletion.' Libertatia's arguments for keeping this article unfortunately resemble advocating exactly what WP:POVFORK says we shouldn't do. Finally, there was no consensus four years ago. The article was kept only by default. UserVOBO (talk) 20:59, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Someone's opinions"? It's an extremely well sourced article. If this is a POV fork, can you say where exactly it was forked from? Where is the other version of this article to be found? Tb (talk) 21:54, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • It could be considered a fork of anarchism or anarcho-capitalism. It is inappropriate for that reason alone. The relevant point is that the reason Libertatia has given for retaining the article conflicts with WP:POVFORK, which explicitly rejects exactly the kind of reasoning he is using. UserVOBO (talk) 23:07, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • A POV fork is specifically when content is taken from one place, and duplicated in some other place, so that it can then express a contrasting point of view. If there is no fork (as here) then you are simply another specious deletion request because you don't like an article, and for no other apparent reason. Tb (talk) 23:54, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note. As with the previous nomination of this article [1], I doubt the good faith character of this nomination. The same nominator recently nominated Progressivism ([2]) for similarly specious reasons.
  • I think your reasons are specious. I have not attacked you; I have attacked the reasons you proposed as specious, and as part of a nascent pattern of deletions for specious reasons. Tb (talk) 21:54, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • If good faith is at issue here, it's enough to say that had I come across this article I would have nominated it myself, and my editing history shows that I have no connection to any subject connected to it. - DustFormsWords (talk) 22:12, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another article I nominated for deletion is a different issue, and there is no reason to discuss it here. If you're confident of the reasons for keeping this article, you don't need to criticise anything I have done in regards to unconnected issues. UserVOBO (talk) 23:04, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Incorrect. It is part of a (nascent) pattern of nominating articles you Don't Like for specious reasons. Your past action casts doubt on your current action. (Note the specious "fork" bogosity above; it's not a fork if it wasn't forked from something.) So, since it manifestly isn't a fork, and doesn't express any particular POV (except perhaps for occasional phrases, which should be addressed there), what are your real reasons? Tb (talk) 23:54, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • That doesn't really deserve a response, except that you're misunderstanding the point of content guidelines, which need to be read in accord with common sense, not legalistically. The intention of WP:POVFORK is partly to prevent just the kind of editing that Libertaria has advocated. UserVOBO (talk) 01:57, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tb, please assume good faith, have a quick read of WP:ADHOM to see why attacking VOBO's motives isn't helping your case, and then have a careful read of WP:CFORK. "A content fork is usually an unintentional creation of multiple separate articles all treating the same subject." This is quite clearly a content fork in that the information covered by the article is, or should be, dealt with in the existing articles anarchism and anarcho-capitalism, and that is where any independent reader would expect to find this information. For treatment of a similar issue in a different context, refer to Creationism-evolution controversy, which you will note does not attempt to explain the differences and similarities between these philosophies but rather documents the verifiable history of the disagreement itself. - DustFormsWords (talk) 02:19, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tb, please stay on topic. I don't know if you're right, but it looks weak. Dust, I'm intrigued you gave two article suggestions when CFORK says "the same subject." Maybe it isn't clear what article this is a fork of. I'd say it describes the interaction of two subsets of anarchism, social anarchism and anarcho-capitalism, which might be described within Anarchism but would be difficult to do so in a reasonable space. Fletcher (talk) 05:11, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The extent to which anarcho-capitalism incorporated anarchist theory belongs in the anarcho-capitalism article. Also, I see no reliable sources for a comparison of the two ideologies in the article. The Four Deuces (talk) 22:33, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • As far as I can tell it is very POV since it takes a stand directly in the first sentence, "This article discusses similarities and differences between anarcho-capitalism and other types of anarchism.", i.e. it says that anarcho-capitalism is a form of anarchism while in reality it only shares the name. However, the topic as such has been the subject of many heated debates so the article may have some merit. // Liftarn (talk) 22:53, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article as it stands now is a meandering, semi-coherent essay about the differences between anarcho-capitalism and other kinds of anarchism (or between anarcho-capitalism and anarchism, if you prefer to see it that way). It could be improved I suppose, but that would simply turn it into a less incoherent but equally unencyclopedic essay. To make it encyclopedic, it would need to be totally rewritten and renamed something like Allegations that anarcho-capitalism is not a genuine form of anarchism. I see no evidence that that would be a notable subject. UserVOBO (talk) 02:14, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per summary style. The vociferous dispute between anarcho-capitalists and -socialists is complex and would be hard to cover in a larger article. That said, this article should be trimmed of exposition that's covered elsewhere, and any synthesis should be removed. Fletcher (talk) 04:51, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • This isn't an article about "the vociferous dispute between anarcho-capitalists and -socialists" - it is an essay about what the differences between the two ideologies are in the abstract, quite a different matter. If an article about the disputes were thought worthwhile (and it would be if it were really a notable topic, which I doubt), then one should be started from scratch. The fact that this article might conceivably be worthwhile if it had a different title and was about something else is hardly a reason for keeping it. UserVOBO (talk) 05:10, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • A dispute between ideologues and a difference between ideologies strikes me as a largely semantic distinction, since ideologies don't exist purely in the abstract but are argued by the people who believe in them. And indeed the article describes both. The question is whether the topic, however phrased, is a notable one. It really concerns the definition of anarchism from various perspectives. Ideally that could be addressed within the anarchism article, were it not so hotly disputed. Fletcher (talk) 05:57, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Describing the differences between two ideologies considered as ideologies and describing the disputes between their proponents are in principle completely different things. Anarchism and anarcho-capitalism states that it does the former, and indeed, that's what most of the article does, with a relatively small amount of information about the disputes. The relevant content guideline (WP:POVFORK) suggests strongly that separate articles such as this are not the way to deal with disputes at other articles, thus, a better way should be found to manage disputes at Anarchism. UserVOBO (talk) 19:59, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Tb and Libertatia. This is a topic and an area of research of some academic (and non-academic) interest and as such is notable. Whether the current article is POV or not is irrelevant to whether it should be deleted; POV is simply NOT a criteria for deletion (per guideline), but rather a reason to improve the article.radek (talk) 18:36, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Libertatia's reasons for keeping (Tb was simply echoing them) in my view amount to a proposed violation of WP:POVFORK. Rather than merely agreeing with them, it would be more helpful to say why you think they're right, or why the POV fork guideline is not being violated. The article, let's remember, is an abstract discussion of how anarchism and anarcho-capitalism differ, not a discussion of the debates over whether anarcho-capitalism is a genuine form of anarchism or not - and there is no evidence I'm aware of that the latter is a notable subject. UserVOBO (talk) 23:14, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think you have misunderstood what Libertatia and I have said. Consider a common practice, where an article for say Italy has a brief section on history, and a pointer to History of Italy. This is not a content fork, it is instead good practice. It would be out-of-shape for Anarchism to have the full contents of Anarchism and anarcho-capitalism in it, but adopting something like the usual practice of History of ... articles makes sense. This is why I ask how it is a fork? Where is the other content? Fork implies some kind of duplication of content, and there is no forking here. Your second point is here brought up for the first time, that you don't think the topic is notable. Notice that An Anarchist FAQ was originally written preciesly to address this question. Chomsky as well has written about it multiple times, as have the authors who have taken a contrary point of view. Tb (talk) 23:39, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • It might not be helpful to add the full contents of this article to Anarchism, but it remains to be shown that they belong anywhere on Wikipedia. As an essay, it is my argument that they do not. WP:POVFORK indicates clearly that creating a new article because of POV disputes at other articles is a bad idea - yet that's the only justification Libertatia has given for Anarchism and anarcho-capitalism being a separate article. If you want to argue about the guideline, then quote it directly, it's not helpful or relevant to say what the term "fork" implies in your view. If you want to show that debates over whether anarcho-capitalism is a genuine form of anarchism or not are notable then it would be best to present such evidence directly, but remember that discussing such arguments is not what Anarchism and anarcho-capitalism does, so even if such debates are notable that wouldn't be a reason for keeping the article. UserVOBO (talk) 23:45, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • As I said, and you don't seem to want to deal with, Libertatia has not said that it's a POV fork, nobody has said that it would be a POV problem or that Anarchism can't have the content for a POV reason. A WP:POVFORK is when a new article is created so that two articles can each be written from contrasting points of view. That is not the case here; instead, the point is that the topic is long and complex, and needs treatment somewhere, and it's too long to have it in Anarchism except in summary form. Tb (talk) 00:23, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The distinction, or lack thereof, between anarchism and anarcho-capitalism is a scholarly problem which cannot be definitively resolved by the application of Wikipedia policies. Addressing this issue, which lurks in the background of a large number of articles is not a POV fork, any more than any of a large number of other articles elaborating on points in top-level articles are, nor is it in itself NPOV (as was initially claimed, but now appears to have been retracted.) There doesn't seem to be a solid argument for deletion here at all. Libertatia (talk) 02:31, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • So far as I know, no one (except perhaps you, though I'm not entirely sure since your comments are not very clear) is arguing that Wikipedia needs to resolve the distinction between anarchism and anarcho-capitalism - so that should be irrelevant. The normal, neutral way to deal with such disputes is to describe them at the relevant articles, presenting all major views in reliable sources fairly. I'm not seeing any solid argument for keeping this essay here at all (eg, no argument that it's not an essay, and no argument against my claim that you've appealed to precisely the reasoning rejected by WP:POVFORK). UserVOBO (talk) 23:01, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • In other words, just to be clear, you propose to have the discussion at the relevant articles, which is to say, in at least two, possible three or four different places. That is, in fact, an actual fork, instead of the imaginary fork you keep talking about here. Tb (talk) 23:09, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Shall we remind ourselves what WP:POVFORK actually states? "A content fork is usually an unintentional creation of multiple separate articles all treating the same subject." Note the articles part. Discussing something within an article is appropriate to the extent that it is relevant to the article - it isn't creating a separate article, which is what Anarchism and anarcho-capitalism is. According to Libertatia, "an NPOV approach does not allow us to simply treat them [eg, anarchism and anarcho-capitalism] as either "distinct ideologies" or shades of the same one. This entry is essentially a long explanatory footnote to the various other entries where the question has been set aside in the interest of peaceful editing". Compare that to WP:POVFORK: "In contrast, POV forks generally arise when contributors disagree about the content of an article or other page. Instead of resolving that disagreement by consensus, another version of the article (or another article on the same subject) is created to be developed according to a particular point of view. This second article is known as a "POV fork" of the first, and is inconsistent with Wikipedia policies. The generally accepted policy is that all facts and major points of view on a certain subject should be treated in one article. As Wikipedia does not view article forking as an acceptable solution to disagreements between contributors, such forks may be merged, or nominated for deletion."
In other words, do not do exactly what Libertatia has said this article is here to do. There has been much obfuscation and dodging of the issue in reply, but no relevant response. UserVOBO (talk) 23:36, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • This article is not here to be one of "multiple separate articles all treating the same subject", but rather, as with, say History of Italy, to be the only article discussing the subject, with brief treatments elsewhere that should point here. You have been asked to identify what these other articles are, and all you have done is say where the discussion might be, but actually isn't. Instead, you are actually proposing moving this discussion to the multiple articles you think relevant, which is, in fact, a duplication, a fork, and inherently likely to produce POV problems as each of those articles begins to discuss the same question in different ways. WP:POVFORK asks that each subject be discussed once (or with brief treatments that point to the main treatment) and that is exactly what this article is here for; you, by contrast, are ironically arguing that we should split the treatment, and repeat it multiple times in multiple articles. Tb (talk) 23:54, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The subject of this article is supposed to be a discussion of the similarities and differences between anarchism and anarcho-capitalism. As such, it is an essay (see WP:NOT#ESSAY), and not proper content for Wikipedia. You, Libertatia, and the other keep voters have ignored this and offered no reason why this essay (or "long explanatory footnote", as Libertatia calls it) should be considered acceptable. It seems obviously unacceptable regardless of how one reads WP:POVFORK, and in any case your reading of the guideline is mistaken. Its clear intention is to prevent the creation of new articles to resolve POV disputes at other articles, something Libertatia seems to consider acceptable practice. He wrote above that it is here to avoid the need to "set aside" the question of whether anarcho-capitalism is a kind of anarchism or not (something NPOV would require doing everywhere, if reliable sources disagree).
In effect, Anarchism and anarcho-capitalism is simply an essay about anarcho-capitalism, discussing it from the point of view that the key question in regards to it is whether it is a genuine kind of anarchism or not - it is being discussed in a different way from how it is discussed at Anarcho-capitalism, but that doesn't turn it into it a genuinely different subject, and it misses the point of the guideline to think it does (a discussion of the disputes between different self-identified anarchists over the legitimacy of anarcho-capitalism as a form of anarchism would be genuinely distinct, but that's not what this article is about). UserVOBO (talk) 04:36, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Who is this "Libertaria" guy, and where does he say that "to prevent the creation of new articles" is "acceptable practice"? This seems to have degenerated to trolling and silly misrepresentations, which leaves me less and less certain there is any good-faith objection here. So -- one last time -- for my part, I don't see a fork, and you have retracted your POV concern. Like most Wikipedia articles, this one could use work, but I don't see a case for deletion. Libertatia (talk) 05:17, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pardon me for getting your username wrong. I've corrected it. Returning to the actual subject of this AfD, I didn't say that you did think that "to prevent the creation of new articles" is "acceptable practice". I said that you appear to think that the creation of new articles to solve POV disputes is acceptable practice. If that wasn't what you meant when you wrote, "This entry is essentially a long explanatory footnote to the various other entries where the question has been set aside in the interest of peaceful editing", then just what did you mean? It certainly looked as though you were supporting exactly what WP:POVFORK rules out. And if the article is, as you asserted, a "footnote to other entries", then how is it not a fork? UserVOBO (talk) 06:10, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weasel words, in defense of the implication of bad faith and/or wiki-misconduct. You've been hammering away at a phrase that you pretty clearly don't understand. You might concentrate on figuring out what's being said before you start spinning stories about what "seems" to be the case with other editors -- particularly when you have no evidence I have any interest in preventing the creation of new articles. By your rationale, it seems that every sub-article addressing specific topics would be subject to criticism as a "fork." That's obviously silly. The article is "a long explanatory footnote" to various anarchism articles, in the same way as Mutualism (economic theory) or Panarchism. We don't debate whether or not "property is theft" or whether a "free market in governmental systems" is actually feasible or anarchistic in every anarchism article -- and we don't do it because we don't need to, since there is a separate article. If we had multiple articles on anarchism -- say, one which emphasized the market anarchist tradition, and drew lines from Bastiat, Molinari and De Puydt to Rothbard and the Mises.org crowd, and one that left all that stuff out to focus on anarcho-communism from Dejacque on, and maybe another that presented only mutualist figures (since Proudhon was the first self-proclaimed "anarchist") -- then we would have "essays" and POV forks. And it wouldn't matter one way or another if the surrounding debates were addressed in articles like the one in question, but, arguably, NPOV would probably be better served if they were. Assuming some level of good faith all around, it looks like the differences are over how NPOV is best served and what is considered "encyclopedic." Libertatia (talk) 18:33, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is the second time you have wrongly accused me of suggesting that you want to prevent the creation of new articles, and it's the second time that I'll tell you that I never suggested that. The problem, with respect, is that, to judge from your comments ("This entry is essentially a long explanatory footnote to the various other entries where the question has been set aside in the interest of peaceful editing"), you regard the creation of new articles as a way of resolving POV disputes at other articles. WP:POVFORK is clear that that isn't the correct way of dealing with such issues; it rejects pretty much exactly what you have suggested is acceptable. By saying that this article is an "explanatory footnote" to other anarchism articles in the same way that Mutualism (economic theory) or Panarchism are, you seem to be shifting your ground, implying that Anarchism and anarcho-capitalism does deal with a distinct subject. If an article is an "explanatory footnote to the various other entries where the question has been set aside in the interest of peaceful editing" then by definition it is not dealing with a different subject, it's simply approaching the same subject (anarcho-capitalism) in a distinct way - eg, by adding a discussion of whether it is a genuine form of anarchism or not. You're right that "We don't debate whether or not 'property is theft' or whether a 'free market in governmental systems' is actually feasible or anarchistic in every anarchism article" - because debating such issues is not what Wikipedia is for. In principle, no articles should do anything like that - "debating" things in Wikipedia articles is not in accord with WP:NPOV, and it's not encyclopedic content anyway. We describe debates in articles, not engage in them. It does not become acceptable to have a "debate" on an issue in an article just because the issue is not discussed elsewhere. UserVOBO (talk) 20:25, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • This appears to be another quibble, this time on the term "debate," along with some annoyingly personal remarks. Saying that I have "shifted ground" doesn't make it so. I'll take your word that you intended the opposite of what your sentence seemed to say. I'll also abandon the word "debate," since you apparently find it distracting; use "explore," if you find it more "encyclopedic." In any event, I've said my bit on the topic of deletion. Libertatia (talk) 01:35, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you choose to call something a debate, one would presume that's because you think it is a debate (and debating things just isn't what Wikipedia articles are for, as I hope you agree). I'll repeat that if something is "essentially a long explanatory footnote to the various other entries", then by definition it isn't about a distinct subject, in the way that, for example, Mutualism (economic theory) is. And there isn't any sense in implying that I asserted that you want to prevent the creation of articles, because for the third time, I never said or implied that: it is rather the creation of misconceived articles, eg Anarchism and anarcho-capitalism, that appears to be the problem. UserVOBO (talk) 02:03, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • See, this is all your rather forced and unfriendly interpretation of what I mean when I say "footnote" or "debate" in the course of a debate between us. You have retracted your POV objections, but seem intent on portraying me as "shifting ground." You can't keep my username straight, but insist that everything I has written must be my precise thought, precisely as you understand it. My apologies, again, for misunderstanding your point about the creation of articles. I misread your slightly tangled prose. My bad. Get over it. But you have yet to show that we are dealing with a POV fork. You may think I am really, really wrong-headed in not interpreting the WP:FORK policy in the way you do. That's fine. But it doesn't change anything. The topic looks sufficiently distinct and encyclopedic to me. Nuff said. Libertatia (talk) 04:03, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Excuse me, but you're talking about my getting your username wrong? Is that all you can think about? Is it even relevant, in any way, to the issues being discussed here? I've already apologised for that mistake - if I got it wrong, it's probably because I'm more interested in the substantive issues than in editors' individual personalities. If you want to try to show that an abstract discussion of the differences between two ideologies (which is totally different from a discussion of the debates between their adherents) is an appropriate subject for an article and not an essay then do so - but simply asserting such a position is not helpful. UserVOBO (talk) 05:19, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's worth observing here that Tb and Libertatia have given what seem to be inconsistent reasons for keeping the article. According to Libertatia's comments above, it's "essentially a long explanatory footnote to the various other entries" - if that is the case, then it is not about a genuinely separate subject, it's simply a set of comments about the same subject as other articles. Yet according to Tb, it's distinct from other articles, in the same way History of Italy is from Italy, which would make it genuinely separate. Which is it? You can't have it both ways. UserVOBO (talk) 06:20, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article is not acceptable even if it doesn't promote a single POV. A discussion of the disputes between self-identified anarchists over whether anarcho-capitalism is a genuine form of anarchism or not would be acceptable if it were a notable subject; an abstract discussion of the issue of whether anarcho-capitalism a genuine form of anarchism or not, or what the differences are between it and anarchism, is not acceptable in any event, because it's an essay. UserVOBO (talk) 20:37, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Basically, the issue of whether or not anarcho-capitalism is a form of anarchism and how it differs from anarchism should be part of the anarcho-capitalism article. The Four Deuces (talk) 06:44, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Or, as it in fact is, spun out separately, because Anarcho-capitalism is already quite long. It would be a problem if this article addressed the subject from a different POV. I've checked pretty carefully, and I didn't find such cases. Anarcho-capitalism discusses the question in summary form, and points to this for a fuller treatment, just as WP:CFORK suggests is good practice. Tb (talk) 20:02, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
According to Libertatia, "This entry is essentially a long explanatory footnote to the various other entries where the question has been set aside in the interest of peaceful editing." Note that he didn't give the length of any article as a reason for this one. That's entirely your argument. His argument was that we need to resolve POV disputes elsewhere, and the intention of WP:POVFORK is to prevent precisely that. It misses the point of the guideline to complain that a single POV is not being promoted here - the fact that the issue is being discussed in the manner of an essay makes it utterly unencyclopedic. Finally, as often pointed out, there is no evidence that disputes over anarcho-capitalism being a genuine form of anarchism is a notable subject - so even leaving other objections aside, the article would still be subject to deletion for dealing with a non-notable issue. UserVOBO (talk) 02:11, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why this is not a POV fork. The above conversations have gotten so distracted by other issues, I thought I'd address specifically the claim that this article is a not content fork, with reference to WP:CFORK. A content fork is when there are "multiple separate articles all treating the same subject". In this case, we have an article, Anarchism, which is a subject. It has many sub-subjects, corresponding to different schools of anarchism. The main article makes brief reference to some, and includes a side-bar to many other articles all part of the general topic of anarchism. Anarcho-capitalism is a political school which some believe to be anarchist, and some believe not to be anarchist. It is listed under "schools of thought" in the sidebar. It is highly controversial among anarchists whether anarcho-capitalism is a genuine school of anarchism or not: this is a POV concern, and it is not Wikipedia's job to determine whether it is or is not. However, the question is complex, with many writers having opinions on the subject and writing about it, and it deserves encyclopedic treatment. To include the full treatment in Anarchism would stretch that article beyond bounds; even more clearly would it be in Anarcho-capitalism. Indeed, including that full discussion in Anarcho-capitalism would be tantamount to implying that the most important thing about anarcho-capitalism is the question of its relation to anarchism in general, which would be a misrepresentation. Instead, this is a "spin-out", an attempt to allow Anarcho-capitalism and Anarchism to point to this article. (Not enough work has been done in those articles to include proper summaries and pointers to Anarchism and anarcho-capitalism, but that's a content problem with those articles, not a problem with this one.) Centrally, to be a content fork, there must be at least some actual forking; there must be some way in which the same topic is being addressed multiple times. At most, we have that some pages discuss this topic very briefly, in summary fashion, with a much longer discussion at Anarchism and anarcho-capitalism. This is, in fact, a big topic area. Anarchism points to Anarchism and capitalism in summary fashion, which in turn, in summary fashion, points to Anarchism and anarcho-capitalism. I can see no case where a topic is being discussed with one point of view in one article, and then in with a different point of view in Anarchism and anarcho-capitalism, and repeated requests for examples have been ignored. I think it's not useful to have deletion discussion be constant back-and-forth; I assume that the nominator is going to reply to this, and insist that once more, nobody has answered his arguments. I would suggest that while he may not like the answers, he has received them, and it isn't helpful for him to continue to pretend that nobody has addressed anything he has said. It is not necessary for him to be convinced for the page to stay. Tb (talk) 19:58, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The question of anarcho-capitalism being a genuine form of anarchism or not is in no sense encyclopedic if it's dealt with as an essay or abstract discussion, which this article, ridiculously, does ("This article discusses similarities and differences between anarcho-capitalism and other types of anarchism."). If it were about the actual debates between anarchists and anarcho-capitalists it might be acceptable - providing that such debates are in fact a notable subject, with significant coverage from outside parties, something I see no evidence of whatever. It would be surprising if real evidence of notablity existed, partly because there does not appear to be any "debate" as such between anarchists and anarcho-capitalists - simply members of rival fringe movements talking past each other. To the extent that that needs to be discussed, it can certainly be discussed at Anarcho-capitalism; it's foolish to suggest that it's some profound issue that would require a separate article, nor would :including that full discussion in Anarcho-capitalism" be "tantamount to implying that the most important thing about anarcho-capitalism is the question of its relation to anarchism in general".
The technical issue of Anarchism and anarcho-capitalism being a fork or not is a secondary point - that this article is an essay is quite enough reason for deletion. What the guideline states actually is, "A content fork is usually an unintentional creation of multiple separate articles all treating the same subject." You somehow missed the usually part. The article could count as a content fork even if it doesn't meat the precise description you gave. The subject of Anarchism and anarcho-capitalism is essentially Anarcho-capitalism again, only here it's discussed in an inappropriate, essay-like way, the existence of a separate article being used as a lame excuse for that kind of writing. UserVOBO (talk) 02:28, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is usually unintentional. It is always a fork. A fork has more than one branch. Tb (talk) 17:24, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This article was created as part of a larger "Anarchism and ___" series. Each is intended to elaborate on an element of anarchist philosophy and history, and includes Anarchism and nationalism, Anarchism and violence, and Anarchism and the arts, among others. Each is intended to provide an objective presentation of an ongoing discourse within anarchist philosophy which has generated a large amount of third party sources Wikipedia could potentially draw upon and present to researchers. However, each topic would be of such breadth and depth that they cannot be contained within small sub-sections on the Anarchism article itself. To delete this article would leave no space on Wikipedia for the subject of Anarchism and its relationship to Anarcho-capitalism. Similarly, deleting the article on the Relationship between Friedrich Nietzsche and Max Stirner would leave no viable platform to discuss the topic. If the nominating editor is so concerned with the way this article presents Anarchism and it's relationship to Anarcho-capitalism, I would recommend an attempt at bold rewriting, rather than nominations to AFD. --Cast (talk) 22:12, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What this article states is, "This article discusses similarities and differences between anarcho-capitalism and other types of anarchism." I have no idea what the intention of the creator and past editors of the article may be, but it does not do what you claim it is meant to do ("provide an objective presentation of an ongoing discourse within anarchist philosophy"). Instead it offers an abstract discussion of differences and similarities between anarchism and anarcho-capitalism, with a small amount of information about disagreements between anarchists and anarcho-capitalists in the "Dispute over legitimacy" section. So, it's an essay - and the very small amount of information it contains about disputes between anarchists and anarcho-capitalists hardly suggests either that there is an "ongoing discourse" on this subject, or that it is notable if there is. UserVOBO (talk) 02:56, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So then we can agree that this article could benefit from a strong rewrite. Glad that's settled. I mean, it doesn't look like you've got any real concerns with this article that couldn't be improved with better writing, focused research, verifiable sources, and proper citations. If the article isn't properly serving its purposes, make it. Don't just accept that it isn't going to be a good article. You have the space. Now put it to good use. --Cast (talk) 16:36, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Let's consider what is actually in the article.
Although anarchism and anarcho-capitalism are both supposed to be political philosophies, the article starts off, strangely enough, with a discussion of economics (the "Economics and individualist anarchism" section). The economics discussion is largely about Murray Rothbard, and is very poorly written and confusing, providing barely enough context to help readers understand how his views differ from those of Lysander Spooner and Benjamin Tucker. The fundamental problem with it is not the way it is written, however, awful as that is, but what it attempts to provide - an abstract, essay-like discussion of how Rothbard's ideology differs from earlier individualist anarchism. Comparing different ideological views isn't what Wikipedia articles should be trying to do - they should simply describe them, so that readers, if they are interested, can form their own views about how they differ. There is absolutely nothing wrong with Wikipedia offering a simple description of Rothbard's views somewhere (including what he thought about Spooner and Tucker, if that is significant enough to mention), but there is absolutely nothing right about it offering an abstract comparison of him with them. Since Rothbard's views can be more appropriately described in the article on him and in Anarcho-capitalism, the solution would be not to rewrite the section, but simply to blank it.
The next section is on "Capitalist structures", which again seems rather odd for an article that compares two different political philosophies. The point of the "Hierarchy, class and employment" subsection seems to be to describe anarchist objections to capitalism, but then it weirdly veers off that topic into an explanation of the fact that such views differ from those of self-defined anarcho-capitalists, next weirdly veering back to leftist anarchists again, thereby giving them the last word. I can't see how any of that is appropriate content. It's just fine to describe what leftist anarchists think, and it's also fine to describe what anarcho-capitalists think, but it's inappropriate to have a long discussion pointing out that these two groups of people think different things (as well as senseless, and something of an insult to the intelligence of Wikipedia's readers). So the problem, again, is less how the material is written than its actual content. The next subsection, "Property", is even longer, sillier, and more poorly written. It provides an extremely contorted description of how various anarchist philosophies differ from those of anarcho-capitalists, an inappropriate and misguided thing for Wikipedia to even attempt. I dare say that "Property" could be rewritten to make it more coherent, but that would not make its content itself (a comparison of differing ideologies) appropriate. It's the same basic problem with the "Markets" section, where there is a long, laboured explanation of how anarcho-capitalism differs from the views of anarchists, and only incidentally some few fragments of information about a debate that might be occuring between these ideologies. UserVOBO (talk) 21:43, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
To continue: the next section is on "Rights." It is also poorly written, and it too does something basically unnecessary and inappropriate for an encyclopedia - comparing two ideologies and explaining how they differ from each other. There are problems there with POV (eg, the implication in the "Defense" subsection that Rothbard wasn't a "real" anarchist, which contradicts the apparent assumption in the lead sentence that anarcho-capitalism is a form of anarchism) and bad writing, but while they could be corrected, doing so would simply make the section a better written essay comparing anarchism and anarcho-capitalism, and thus equally inappropriate in principle. UserVOBO (talk) 21:49, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The next section is "Profit and theory of value". It seems rather poorly organized, though it's by no means as bad as some of the other sections of the article in that respect. Again, it is almost entirely an abstract discussion of how anarchism and anarcho-capitalism are different, with only a very brief mention of actual debates between anarchists and anarcho-capitalists (in one vague, unsourced sentence: "This has been a major point of contention between anarcho-capitalists and other anarchists, most of whom see this as a form of hierarchy, exploitation and privatized statism".) I grant that the debates themselves may possibly be a legitimate subject, but only if there is evidence that they are notable per the guideline, evidence that I don't see in that section. UserVOBO (talk) 21:56, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Then there's the "Other forms" section, which has a confusingly vague title: other forms of what, exactly? It is very poorly written and cluttered, providing, in its first paragraph, a series of descriptions of what various individuals think about anarchism and anarcho-capitalism, arranged in no useful order. There is some more information about Spooner and Tucker, though it seems misplaced in that section, since they are first discussed at the start of the article; the information about them (assuming it serves a useful purpose at all) should be arranged in one place rather than scattered through different sections. Yet correcting such details wouldn't make the section or the article as a whole acceptable. Notice how, in one paragraph (the one that starts, "Benjamin Tucker supported private ownership of the product of labor"), we veer from a description of Tucker's views into criticism of Murray Rothbard ("However, individualists argue that capitalism cannot be maintained in the absence of the state.") and a quote from Kevin Carson, and then back again into a description of Tucker. It's dreadfully written, but that is hardly the main problem - it hopelessly blurs the line between an appropriate description of someone's views and a totally inappropriate, essay-like analysis of them and of some differing, contemporary views (those of Rothbard and his followers). Following that paragraph, we get more descriptions of the views of various anarchists and anarcho-capitalists (Wendy McElroy, mentioned in the first paragraph of this section, is discussed again), a long quote farm, a mention of the fact that some individualist anarchists do not regard anarcho-capitalism as anarchism (which does nothing to suggest that there is an actual, ongoing debate between these groups), more material about Rothbard's views of Tucker and Spooner that suffers from the same problems as the material in the "Economics and individualist anarchism" section, and to round things out, a brief description of some differences of opinion among anarcho-capitalists, which is not uninteresting but would better belong in Anarcho-capitalism. UserVOBO (talk) 22:19, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Next is a subsection that for no obvious reason is called "Social anarchism", and consists of Brad Spangler's view of Rothbard. It is quite interesting, but is the sort of material that would belong in the Anarcho-capitalism and Anarcho-capitalism article, and doesn't require housing in a separate article such as this one. UserVOBO (talk) 22:24, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Then there's "Related philosophies", another section with a uselessly vague name. It is largely about Benjamin Tucker's criticism of Auberon Herbert, and there is nothing about it which suggests that it wouldn't be better in the Tucker and/or Herbert articles. UserVOBO (talk) 22:27, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Finally we reach the "Dispute over legitimacy" section, which has a very strange and eyebrow-raising title: dispute over the legitimacy of what, precisely? Supposedly, the article as a whole is about the similarities and differences between anarchism and anarcho-capitalism, which leaves the reader with no idea whether the "dispute over legitimacy" section will be about a dispute over the legitimacy of anarchism or of anarcho-capitalism. It turns out to be about the legitimacy of anarcho-capitalism, something that reinforces my suspicion that this article is not a proper description of anarcho-capitalism or anything else but rather a critical discussion of anarcho-capitalism, which certainly has no place in an encyclopedia. The section is poorly written, like the rest of the article, but again, that's not the fundamental problem with it. There is some reference here to what anarchists and anarcho-capitalists think of each other, but mainly we are offered an abstract discussion of the merits of their respective views, giving some (unsourced, as it happens) information that is supposed to reflect positively or negatively on them (eg, "However, virtually all dictionary definitions define "anarchism" as opposition to the state. Significantly, few anarchists who called themselves "socialist" defined "anarchism" as purely opposition to the state.")
Even if this stuff was properly sourced, it wouldn't be appropriate, since it isn't the purpose of a proper article to list facts that count for or against particular views, simply to describe them. The listing of facts that are meant to count against anarcho-capitalism and for other kinds of anarchism is on the whole not done in a blatantly POV way, but it is still far from acceptable. The final sentence ("However, most anarchists would agree with scholar Jeremy Jennings statement that it is "hard not to conclude that these ideas [anarcho-capitalism] – with roots deep in classical liberalism – are described as anarchist only on the basis of a misunderstanding of what anarchism is.") certainly suggests a very strong anti-anarcho-capitalist POV, and one that contradicts the first sentence, which apparently implies that anarcho-capitalism is a form of anarchism. So the article, in the last resort, looks like a rather muddled critical discussion of/attack on anarcho-capitalism. There is some interesting content here that might be suitable somewhere on Wikipedia, but there's only a very small amount of it, and I hardly think that this article is needed to store it. There's a very, very small amount of material here that may be worth saving by transferral to other articles, and a whole lot of confused, pointless stuff that it would improve Wikipedia to totally wipe. UserVOBO (talk) 22:51, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is an extremely long criticism of content, not the existence of the article per-se. You seem to be using a deletion review as a substitute for a content discussion on the page. We get it; you don't like the article. Can you stop repeating yourself now? You haven't said anything new, except to continually protest that what you say hasn't been addressed. Well, it has, and now your down to criticisms that something "is poorly written", has misleading section titles, and so forth. We get it, you're against it. Bully for you, but you haven't convinced the other participants here, and we don't have the obligation to convince you. It seems clear there is no consensus in favor of deletion. So far, I'm impressed with your ability to even strike out the POV nonsense you started with at the beginning, and yet continue to raise it here. It's not worth it any longer to continue to address your points one at a time, especially now that you've just written over fifteen hundred words of content criticism. It's appalling that you should be this much of a time-sink on a repeated deletion review. I wonder what your next disruption will be. Tb (talk) 23:26, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Content vs. article is a false distinction. What on earth do you think the article consists of, except for its content? Nearly all of it is an abstract essay (and a poorly written one, not that it would be acceptable if it were not poorly written). What little acceptable material there is (and sure, some of it is quite interesting) deals with criticisms of anarcho-capitalists by anarchists and vice versa; I see no evidence either that such criticisms are an independently notable subject, or that they require a separate article and could not be more usefully included in other articles. The POV issue is somewhat confused by the fact that the article starts out by implying that anarcho-capitalism is a form of anarchism, and then at the end reverses itself and implies that anarcho-capitalism is not a genuine form of anarchism. Reconsidering the issue, it does seem to me that a POV is being advanced here, and it is a POV hostile to anarcho-capitalism. The article is a discussion of anarcho-capitalism from a critical standpoint, and thus amounts to a POV fork. AfDs are not majority votes. There have been several delete votes and I think slightly more keep votes, but the final result may depend on which side makes the strongest policy-based case. That you end your comment with a personal attack on me does not help you make your case. UserVOBO (talk) 01:55, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Content vs. article can be a fair argument to make, if the article title refers to a legitimate subject, while the content is unrelated to it. For example, what if Barack Obama's biography article was completely unsourced, and referred to him as a Kenyan illegal immigrant? That would not be an argument for deletion, but rather a rewrite. This is my argument for keeping the article. It is not serving a proper purpose, but may with a rewrite. Looking at the article history, it would seem that the vast majority of the edits were performed in 2006 and 2007. This is also when the majority of discussion takes place on its talk page. Relatively speaking, it has sat moribound since then. Anarchist related articles during that period were berift with POV infighting among editors, and I would say this article's haphazard shape is a result of that. With the passage of several years, and the founding of the Anarchist Task Force, which seeks to promote a culture of inclusion and pluralism among anarchist editors and within anarchism articles, now would be the right time to restructure this article. Take note that during the period of the mid 'ougties, the Anarchism article was among Wikipedia's most heavily contested. Thanks to a push by the ATF, it is now a GA article. I think that if the ATF could pull that off, it could handle an overhaul of this article as well.--Cast (talk) 02:14, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to agree with you that a good deal of this article is out of place and should best be deleted as unencyclopedic. It doesn't seem to be written in the proper tone this article should serve. It should not be an originally researched exposition on the differences between various schools of anarchist thought, and anarcho-capitalism. It should delve into the history of these philosophies in relationship to each other, commentary made by various philosophers on this history and on the general philosophy of each, and on notable comparisons made in political, social, and economic history and philosophy. If it were to do this, this would be an excellent article for Wikipedia and possibly of high value to various WikiProjects, such as WP:Philosophy and WP:Socialism, not to mention the Anarchist Task Force. Now, exactly what the size of the article would be cannot be known at this junction. Such things can be difficult to estimate in fringe philosophy studies. I think it would be best to delete large swaths of this article, rewriting it closely along cited guidelines, and once those citations are exhausted, determining if a various merges or a single merge would be useful with a merge proposal. --Cast (talk) 01:02, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm slightly confused now as to your position. You seemed to favor keeping the article, but now you suggest that it might be appropriate to eventually merge it with something else. In which case, there wouldn't be a separate article; that would have much the same effect as deletion. Having reviewed the article, I think the legitimate content here might amount to a paragraph at most. There certainly isn't so much material that one could convincingly argue that it would bloat other articles out of shape to include it in them. So why keep the article, especially in the absence of sources suggesting that debate over whether anarcho-capitalism is a genuine form of anarchism or not is a notable topic? UserVOBO (talk) 02:26, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Pardon, the final sentence of my comment looks like I only favor a merge. I meant to state that a merge could be discussed and possibly decided upon, though an alternate choice might just be to keep the article all together. You may be right that little more than a paragraph of verifiable, cited content may be left after all sources on the discourse involving the philosophical and historical relationship between Anarchism and Anarcho-capitalism are exhausted, but that would seem unlikely to my thinking. Consider the age of Anarcho-capitalism. It is a socio-economic school of thought going back 70 years. That's a lot of time for third party sources to build up. Now consider the age of the internet. Most of the sources for this article would not likely be found through a google search. A university library and the assistance of a research librarian would be of better use. It may be the case that this could be a potentially large article, or least of enough size and potential quality to justify GA quality. It needen't be particarlly large to achieve such status. Consider the anarchist biography article of Lev Chernyi. It is currently 74 kb in size, comprised of 3 main sections and only 5 paragarphs. However it is of substantive enough quality to have achieved GA status. I don't see why this article couldn't potentially achieve the same distinction. Though small, it may be well written and of ecellent use to researchers. Wikipedia as a project would benefit for the existence of such an article, and I do not see how that project would be furthered by the deletion of this article instead. I would fully agree to delete this article if I felt this was a situation that warrented it, and have when I've encountered hoaxes and non-notable biographies. I believe this to be an article which can prove its own value in time. --Cast (talk) 02:46, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion seems to have largely served its purpose. My position remains the same. The article is an essay, the real subject of which is anarcho-capitalism, which it discusses from a critical standpoint. It is not "inherently POV", in that it could be rewritten to be genuinely neutral, but it is POV as it stands, and WP:POVFORK is therefore being violated here. That there are plenty of sources on Anarcho-capitalism is not a relevant reason for keeping, since there is a separate, properly encyclopedic article on the topic, and a second (unencyclopedic) one should not be needed. It might be a reason for keeping if there were sources to show that debate over whether anarcho-capitalism is a form of anarchism is a notable topic, because the article could be rewritten to describe the debate rather than as an analysis of the issue, but I don't see any sign of them. UserVOBO (talk) 21:23, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This deletion discussion reminds me of the nomination for the deletion of Anarchism and Friedrich Nietzsche. That discussion was substantially shorter, but the nomination rational was the same. The content appeared to the nominator to be an essay. It was instead a well researched article by a specialist (and Anarchist Task Force member) which focused on the historical relationship between the two subjects. Largely crafted by a single editor over a few days, it's development was very different from Anarchism and anarcho-capitalism article, however that just displays that too many cooks can spoil the pot. Again, this article was created during a highly contentious period. The first comment on the archived talk page quips "Yeah, that's what Wikipedia really needs... another anarchism-related page for the socialists and capitalists to edit-war over!" Five years later, I think that cooler heads could now prevail to craft a better article. --Cast (talk) 03:03, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Anarchism_and_anarcho-capitalism_(2nd_nomination)&oldid=1068823542"