- 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. ✗plicit 12:10, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Anarcho-monarchism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The lead sentence of this article describes the subject as a "fringe theoretical political philosophy", which is already quite the shaky start, but I think even this description gives it more credit than it's due, as the term is not popular enough to even show up in Google Ngrams results.
Of the cited sources in this article, and the ones I can see on Google Scholar, there appear to be three broad uses for the term: one is a throwaway term used by Peter Lamborn Wilson (see Grindon 2004; Fiscella 2009; Fiscella 2020); another a descriptor for Tolkien's political ideology, largely based on a single letter he wrote to his son (see Hart 2010; Siewers 2013; Hayes 2017; Davis 2021); and finally as a generic throw-away descriptor for neo-feudalism (see Turan 2023). One other source describes Rodolphe Crevelle, the founder of Lys Noir, as an "anarcho-royaliste", but again in a throwaway line that almost reads as mocking.
Something that quickly becomes apparent in all of the sources, is that none of them give significant coverage to the subject. Almost all of the references are throw-away mentions, sometimes relegated to footnotes. The only source that goes in any depth is a student paper, which is quite clearly not a reliable source. I doubt this article will grow any larger than the stub it currently exists as.
As I stated, calling this a "fringe theoretical political philosophy" is generous, as it doesn't appear to be a real thing at all. Its references are all throwaway lines, usually either attributed to Peter Lamborn Wilson or describing a single letter by Tolkien. There'd barely even be enough to merge into Wilson or Tolkien's own articles, the sourcing is that thin. As there appears to be no significant coverage of "anarcho-monarchism" in reliable sources, I'm recommending this article for deletion. Grnrchst (talk) 08:50, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy, Philosophy, Politics, Royalty and nobility, France, Sweden, and United Kingdom. Grnrchst (talk) 08:50, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I agree with Grnrchst's careful analysis and I don't agree with the edit summary used for recreation - "Created page, many new sources since the last deletion discussion" Mujinga (talk) 09:06, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete there's quite a few Google hits for the French translations of this term, from reliable sources, however there's no French Wikipedia article for it, just a Wikitionnaire entry. I don't think it meets WP:GNG and agree with Grnrchst that the mentions in the sources are passing. Orange sticker (talk) 09:33, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I had a similar read when first reviewing this article. It's a term used as an epithet in passing but does not cohere between reliable sources into a clear system of ideas nevertheless one that is in active consideration (sigcov) by sources. czar 13:58, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, you make some great points. While the article is better than it's original form, it's lacking in many areas. Could it be transferred to my userspace for archival purposes? Microplastic Consumer (talk) 16:58, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- If you plan to keep working on it, yes, the closing admin can help, per WP:DRAFTIFY. If you are looking to just keep it for posterity, I recommend saving an offline copy since Wikipedia does not hold drafts indefinitely. czar 19:21, 25 July 2024 (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.