Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Omniarchy

Omniarchy

Omniarchy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (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 RipplingBeast (talk · contribs) who made the quoted comment and tried to introduce a 17k original research essay, but by EVCM (talk · contribs). 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 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)