Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Panocracy (2nd nomination)

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion
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. --Coredesat 03:13, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Panocracy

edit
AfDs for this article:
Panocracy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

This article appears to violate WP:OR. It has no relaiable references. It returns zero hits on google scholar, which is suggestive, even if not a complete guide. User:John Talbot, who started the article, also seems to be the main person promoting the idea. For example, he wrote: "It is for this reason that I proposed some years ago the use of the word panocracy. Pan meaning everyone so panocracy is rule by everyone" on [1] on 2006-06-20 12:17, and seems to be the main author of the site promoting this idea [2]. Of course, I could be missing something, so I hope someoen with better knowledge of this field will examine this article. Anarchia 03:19, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comrade Agamennon2, report for thoughtcrime. In Pancracy, everybody rules YOU!!--Victor falk 19:30, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why 'merge' something that violates WP:OR? Anarchia 22:41, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Every single word of it is not OR, and merging parts of it would improve panarchy.--Victor falk 23:03, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is, from memory, one reference in the article. Surely it would be better to get information from a reliable source to include in panarchy, and then include the reference? Anarchia 01:05, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete I don't think panocracy has any really reliable references except those that look like original research, possibly by the wikipedia editors?? Something which is not supposed to be done on wikipedia. So unless you can prove that it really is a philosophy known about in wider political circles, I agree it SHOULD be deleted. It should NOT be referred to in either panarchy or panarchism for that reason.Carol Moore 01:36, 11 October 2007 (UTC)User:Carolmooredc User talk:Carolmooredc
  • Comment Evidently what a few call "pantocracy" and "panocracy" is widely known as panarchy (39 resp 46 vs 203000 ghits). Nevertheless, they contain some information that could be included in "panarchy", hence a merger being more appropriate than a deletion. Don't flush the baby with the bath water.--Victor falk 02:13, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply to Comment. As I researched further down the search engines, I realized that pantocracy and panocracy have been described by a variety of people. The problem is NO ONE bothers to discuss those sources or link to them in either article. Therefore it's just someone's philosophy with a lot of wiki links. If someone wants to keep those articles in they should beef them up with real info, and not just opinions, ASAP.

Carol Moore 02:43, 11 October 2007 (UTC)User:Carolmooredc User talk:Carolmooredc

  • I don't have a problem with merging any sourced and accurate info. There is little credible in one article and none in the other. There IS such sourced info on pantocracy and panocracy on the web that could be added, if it is proved it is relevant. But you can't merge someone's original unsourced research and opinion on how all these things relate to each other. That's what it means when the articles are being deleted for violating WP:OR.
Carol Moore 03:40, 11 October 2007 (UTC)User:Carolmooredc User talk:Carolmooredc
  • Keep until a suitable place to merge is found. The contents of the article describe a real phenomenon, a way of distributing power that is showing itself in different settings, and may possibly become a major trend. However, the word panocracy seems to be invented by John Talbut, and does not have widespread use. Thus, it is really the title that is the problem. We should look for somewhere else to put the contents; but as that is difficult to find, I say keep it as is for the time being. Merging with Panarchy is not a solution: that is something quite different. Rune Kock 20:12, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Again, wouldn't it make more sense to delete this unless WP:V is satisfied, which is not the case for material in this article derived from John Talbot's OR web pages? Anarchia 21:14, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. It's a bad precedent to allow essentially all opinion articles to survive. People who want to keep the article should do the research and re-write it with sources! Unsourced opinion articles shouldn't be merged into sourced articles, thereby bringing down their quality. When does this get decided, anyway??
Carol Moore 22:22, 12 October 2007 (UTC)User:Carolmooredc User talk:Carolmooredc
  • Delete I see no evidence whatever for general use of the term, or any importance. I am sometimes flexible about what I think can be considered not altogether OR, but this is unmistakable total OR, a purely personal unsourced essay on the subject. The article is more substantial than the previous version, which is why I said above it wasn' t a speedy for G4, but it still does not say anything encyclopedic. DGG (talk) 02:58, 14 October 2007 (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/Panocracy_(2nd_nomination)&oldid=1265082057"