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. Fritzpoll (talk) 07:47, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anarchist naturism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

The topic is not notable, possible neologism. A Google search finds nothing except few other wiki pages. There are several sources used in the article but they are either not reliable (for example first, most used source is an article from regional Spanish anarchist periodical) or are used in OR fashion. In short, here is nothing that suggests notability or availability of reliable secondary sources. -- Vision Thing -- 19:11, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:07, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been listed as an Anarchism task force deletion discussion.

• Keep Zazaban (talk) 07:29, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Can you please elaborate on why you think the article should be kept? --Cast (talk) 03:32, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep or Move Looking over the article, I fail to see what makes Solidaridad Obrera unreliable. Several other sources seem to be instantly reliable on their very face. Of those which I would agree to consider unreliable, I think statements citing them could simply be deleted, and the article would remain largely intact. Further, I don't think this is an article about a neologism, but rather on the intersection of "Anarchism and naturism", and so it should be moved to that name space. In that sense, it is no different than the article on the historical intersection of Anarchism and Marxism or Anarchism and nationalism. --Cast (talk) 03:32, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Solidaridad Obrera is an extremist, questionable source. Other sources are of the same of worse quality. In the whole article there isn't one reliable secondary source about anarchist naturism. -- Vision Thing -- 20:36, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Can you explain in what way it is "extremist" or "questionable" in this context? I can understand that it's editors carry a minority point of view, but how does that make it any more extremist than, as just one example, Anarchy: A Journal of Desire Armed. --Cast (talk) 21:02, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Delete. Most of the article's references link to unreliable sources like personal webpages and essays. Some of the Spanish papers could turn out to be more useful but I'm having trouble parsing any relevant information from their Google-translated versions. Considering that an expanded Google search shows only 26 results and no signs of notability or verifiability, I have little choice but to lean toward deletion. — Rankiri (talk) 16:34, 7 June 2009 (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.