Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anarchopedia 3rd 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 Delete. Xoloz 20:10, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Anarchopedia

Non notable wiki. Fails WP:V and WP:WEB. Article was deleted in February 2005 but later recreated. Article went through afd again in october 2005 but result was no consensus. Additional info: The site receives 83,100 google hits and has an alexa ranking of 502,746. Peephole 16:32, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Lots of recent AfDs have questioned the validity of WP:WEB (not taking sides myself), so I will instead highlight the lack of verifiability (from reliable sources) of almost the entire content of this article. From perusing the google search results, I'm finding it difficult to see how this website can meet WP's clear verifiability standards. Even the most strident inclusionists will surely accept that unverifiable information is unwelcome in WP. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 17:08, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:WEB and WP:V. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:10, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
• keep on WP:WEB, a site is considered notable if "The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself". This is the case, as authors contribute their texts from other sources to anarchopedia. As to verifiability, the spanish version of Anarcopedia states its priciples in terms very similar to those in the article.In english, refer to

http://meta.anarchopedia.org/Anarchopedia:en:itself

http://meta.anarchopedia.org/Anarchopedia:en:Sysops

and http://meta.anarchopedia.org/Anarchopedia:en:direct_democracy

(just placed those as references)

Besides, an article about anarcopedia is relevant as aid to the definition of wikipedia itself

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_an_experiment_in_anarchy. Cold Light 22:18, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: Those arent sources independent from the site itself.--Peephole 23:42, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
  • response Yes ... But can't we have the site as a source even for determining it's own stated goals ? Cold Light 16:00, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
    • cleanup Now the article has a lot o' extra information. Still waiting for a definition on whether the Anarchopedia can, itself, be a source about the goals, and evaluations of their success. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cold Light (talk • contribs) 05:24, 13 August 2006.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 15:49, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

• DELETE 500k Alexa rating = no visitors. lots of issues | leave me a message 23:01, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • verifiability. on the talk about "reliable sources", it apears that a site can be a reliable souce, as far as its own goals are concerned. So, unless the claims on the article do not fall under the "goal statment", or other consensus is reached on the talk page about rebiable sources, i think the verifiablity is established (rebiable sources discussion at [1])Cold Light 00:02, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

ps: not quite sure that the number of visits establishes the fact that a site is no notable ... WP:WEB (as quoted above) has a paragragh about "non trivial contribuitions ..." that seems to establish the notability of the site (also, we should note that the CreationWiki, that no one claims to be non notable, has a WAY higher number in alexa :1,500k)

1,000,000 Hits in 2006-July is low? --217.84.44.94 15:05, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. There is some question of whether the article meets some standards, but those standards are based on NPOV, they are not rigid standards, there is no a black and white threshold which a subject of interest must meet. The article is about an experiment in democracy, it is a new idea, it is an idea which could not work without the internet, i.e. paper publication would be much to slow. It is an unusual item of interest, of potential interest to Wikipedia policy and of potential interest to internet users. Because of its potential, let's leave it as an article for a while. In time, perhaps it will grow, or it might even shrink and die.
  • Comment: Wikipedia is not a crystal ball (WP:NOT). We can always add it again when it becomes notable but so far nobody has proven the site's notability as covered under WP:WEB.--Peephole 13:55, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: (I don't want to vote/say keep because I started this project, however here are some notes: ) (1) Anarchopedia is MW site with the most language editions after Wikipedia: (I think) 23 opened, not all of them active. (2) There are at least five separate communities which maintain (very active or not so active) Anarchopedia in their own language (French, German, Danish, Polish and Indonesian) as well as some groups of individuals on a few other (such as Spanish and Italian) -- which means that it is a project which is more active project then, for example, Wikinfo. (3) Anarchopedia is now notable anarchist project; website is linked, for example, from Infoshop OpenWiki as well as site si better ranked then International Workers Association and Industrial Workers of the World sites. (4) From the last nomination for deletion (last October), anarchopedia went from 1,500.000 to 500.000 place on the Alexa. (5) There are a lot of other projects which has less rating then Anarchopedia and which has their own articles on Wikipedia. (6) The biggest anarchist site, Infoshop.org is at 84.000. place on Alexa; which means that sites about anarchism are not so high ranked; one of the most imoprtant reasons for that is that anarchists don't like to use an capitalist methods for marketing of their own sites. (7) As it is mentioned, Anarchopedia is important to Wikipedia because it is showing to Wikipedian community one of possible ways how to organize community. (8) Anarchopedia has it's own content incorporated from other sources and it is an online encyclopedia, like Wikipedia is. (9) It is also GFDL compatible (unlike a number of other online encyclopedias), which means that Wikipedia is able to incorporate texts from Anarchopedia, too (not a lot of them in this moment, but as time is passes, a number of articles which is possible to incorporate is growing). (10) Look into the keep-arguments from the last nomination. --millosh (talk (sr:)) 02:13, 15 August 2006 (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.