Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/An Anarchist FAQ
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- An Anarchist FAQ (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Website appears to fail the notability guidelines. At first I believed the Infoshop sources would be sufficient, but they were written by the authors of Anarchist FAQ miserably botching WP:RSSELF Additionally, Infoshop itself is suspect to being an unreliable source since it does not name its contributors nor provide any form of verification, political partisanship aside. I attempted to find notability from many reliable sources and was unable to do so. All results pointed to their published books, none about the website itself. Jcmcc (Talk) 19:52, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Internet. Shellwood (talk) 20:19, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
- A quick Google search for material citing *An Anarchist FAQ* on academia.edu shows numerous citations, of both the web project and published volumes, in mainstream academic publications by scholars respected within the field of Anarchist Studies. Libertatia (talk) 05:00, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
- I'm sympathetic to the nom because my talk page comment on sourcing has gone unanswered since 2018. Absolutely true that it is often cited but also true that any significant discussion of the FAQ itself (as the subject) and its development from multiple reliable, independent sources (?) has eluded me for years. Even in relation to its publication and editing by McKay, there is little secondary source discussion of the FAQ, its editors, or its import. The brief lines mentioned in the article are passing mentions. Infoshop.org is not in itself a reliable source for statements of fact, but if the FAQ has strong association with the site, I considered a potential redirect to the Alternative Media Project but found no significant sources that discussed its connection. We can always restore the article if/when such sources appear. I also have an idea for a potential merge target but let's see if I can get it out of draft. czar 19:13, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:28, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
- Well, the Legacy paragraph points at the end seems convincing enough to warrant its stay here. Being called the "most influential" or "greatest" or "easiest" to something surely means enough for it to stay, no?