Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Omniarchy

Add links
From 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 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)[reply]

Omniarchy

[edit]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    • 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". --AmaltheaTalk 19:06, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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. --AmaltheaTalk 18:56, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[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/Omniarchy&oldid=1069638989"