Wikibooks:Requests for deletion/Anarchism

Anarchism
Violates NPOV ("Government kills people.", "Anarchism will result in greater freedom, obviously" - just a quote from the first page) and is a copy (Anarchism:FAQA2) of another article from anarchist website. Do we need such copies? Anyone can find original article by Google. --Derbeth 10:30, 15 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete Agreed. This isn't a textbook, it's propaganda. On top of violating NPOV, it also violates the "Wikibooks is not a soapbox" policy as well. Furthermore, i can't imagine that a topic like this could be even transformed into a textbook, because i can't think of a single reference or official information source to cite. As such, it would also be original research (or meer speculation), and that's strike 3. --Whiteknight T C E 14:38, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
 * It could be transformed into a textbook by telling about anarchist beliefs rather than being a soapbox (like it currently is). Those are common anarchist (and to a large degree, libertarian) political beliefs-  government is force, force is bad, etc.  Although with the current state, I'd have to agree with you. --Gabe Sechan 18:08, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete In its current form, its a soapbox. I wouldn't mind seeing a book that chronicles the history of anarchist movements around the world, and show what anarchists think and what really happens in anarchistic situations, but this book is not it.  --Gabe Sechan 18:08, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete as a copyright violation. I am relying on the Google cache, but I think that I found an infringement of copyright. I have decided not to try to fix the NPOV problem. --Kernigh 22:47, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete Violates NPOV (I am surprised this is not a speedy delete candidate)Juliusross 01:49, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
 * ""Delete"" as it will remain POV, but do not speedy delete.. at least not if it has any significant content. I've seen one or two good anarchist wikis out there, the author should be given an oppertunity to transfer it to one. - Nyarlathotep 17:44, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment: Where did it go? Ten days seems a short time to allow for discussion.  --kwhitefoot 21:55, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Look at Deletion policy; if I recall correctly, seven days (one week) is enough. That is especially true in this case where no user voted Keep. --Kernigh 01:56, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Deleted by Guanaco at 15:56, 25 November 2005. --Kernigh 01:56, 26 November 2005 (UTC)