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The result was Withdrawn by nominator. Cbrown1023 01:08, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Inclusive Democracy[edit]

Inclusive Democracy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View log)

*Nominate for deletion. Article fails WP:N and WP:COI. It contains no assertions of notability. The text is an extremely brief paragraph followed by many links to promotional materials. Looking at the talk page, the article was previously involved in a copyright conflict and the participants in the discussion make it painfully clear that the article was written by Inclusive Democracy people. Obvious submarine advertisement. This is a procedural nomination. I checked out the Inclusive Democracy materials with the intention of culturing a nice bias either for or against, but they are so opaque with academia that I failed to get very far. Drake Dun 05:18, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Withdraw nomination for deletion for the following reasons.

(1) A week before I nominated this article for deletion, I stated on the article's talk page that I would refrain from nominating the article for deletion if it were developed with more content. Since then, narap43 has written a proper article. Technically it's a little late, but in keeping with the spirit of my promise I am withdrawing my nomination for deletion.

(2) The links at the bottom of the new article may make out a case for notability. It is a very weak case, but I prefer inclusion in borderline cases. The following two sources qualify as sources of notability under Wikipedia guidelines in my opinion:

(a) David Freeman, Thesis Eleven, no. 69, Sage Publications, May 2002, pp. 103-106

(b) “Inclusive Democracy” entry in “Routledge Encyclopedia of International Political Economy:” pp. 732-733, ed. by R.J. Barry Jones, 2001

The following two sources are borderline, but might be considered to qualify:

(a) http://www.agorainternational.org/dnweb1.html;

(b) http://susanohanian.org/show_nclb_outrages.html?id=2531 (this one is from TouristPhilosopher)

Given these two (or four) sources there is a minimal case for satisfaction of the notability criteria. That said, I want to respond to some of the comments below.

• TouristPhilosopher asks me to prove that he is associated with the ID Project. My answer is that there is obviously some connection. You registered a user account specifically to oppose the deletion of the Inclusive Democracy article. As of this writing you have not participated on Wikipedia in any other capacity. Your comments on the question of whether ID is notable are not dispassionate, and betray an obvious emotional investment in whether the article is deleted or not. Like many of the people at the center of the ID Project, you are not a native English speaker, even though most of the participants in the English Wikipedia are. I suppose it is possible that you are not one of the people at the center of ID, but rather a very enthusiastic supporter. But I really doubt it.
• In answer to narap43, several points. First, I never said that ID is not notable. I stated that the article failed to make out a case for notability and that its notability was therefore suspect. There is a difference. It does not fall upon me to prove the negative proposition that ID is not notable. Second, your accusations regarding my role on Wikipedia are easy to disprove by simply looking at my contributions list. Your claim that I only registered a few weeks ago is false. My first edit was in November of 2006. Your claim that one of my first acts as a registered user was to identify bias in the ID article is also false. Long before becoming involved in any fashion with the ID article, I contributed to several other, totally unrelated articles, including Physicalism, Curry, Soka Gakkai, etc. Your claim that I have declared a sole ambition to identify bias in Wikipedia articles is also false. I have no idea where you got this notion. In short, all of your accusations are either grievous mistakes or barefaced lies. And by the way, I have not identified any biases in the ID article. I challenged it on the basis of notability and conflict of interest. There is a difference. Regarding conflicts of interest, I do not feel a need to defend Wikipedia's policies, except by saying that I have nothing to do with them and they are what they are regardless of my opinions on them.

Drake Dun 16:28, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 05:23, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

merge to and redirect to Takis Fotopoulos. --CyclePat 05:38, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Inclusive Democracy is notable. The copyright issue was resolved. If you do a google you can find many pages of notable citations in books, articles and academic discussions. john sargis 04:49, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes the truth is that Inclusive Democracy is notable. Below you can find some links to articles with references to Inclusive Democracy.

http://mrzine.monthlyreview.org/agm301005.html http://web.mac.com/publicresistance/iWeb/Doc%20G/Chapters.html http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/carfax/cdna/2003/00000009/00000003/art00006 http://hungary.indymedia.org/cikk.shtml?x=21661 http://mondediplo.com/2006/01/13degrowth http://www.animalsuffering.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=5065&start=15 http://susanohanian.org/show_nclb_outrages.html?id=2531 http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/newswire/archive588.html

So i would like to ask you to stop the deletion project -right now. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.254.19.143 (talk) 14:27, 18 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

• The above comment is made by me TouristPhilosopher. Now I'm registered and from now on i'm going to use my username. Thanks.

I remain unconvinced. I looked at all the links you posted and found a couple which were close to qualifying as sources, but none which made the cut. "References" do not count. Please actually read the notability policies. "A topic is notable if it has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works from sources that are reliable and independent of the subject itself and each other." That means that people talking about it in an Internet forum, brief references, stuff that comes one way or another from ID people themselves, and stuff which talks about Fotopoulos but not ID do not count. Also, nobody has addressed the COI issue. The article was written by Inclusive Democracy people. The only two people who have objected to its deletion here are also Inclusive Democracy people. Clearly there is a problem. Wikipedia is not free advertising space. Drake Dun 04:27, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I added a lot of new material, first, to give more info on the aspects of the Inclusive Democracy project and, second, to establish the notability of the article, as suggested by user Drake Dun. Also, many links to online and printed resources are given.

User:narap43 9:27, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

• I agree that the Inclusive Democracy entry needed a lot of expansion from its previous “stub” form and I think that in its present form it is a satisfactory presentation of the topic. But for Drake Dun to declare that a project, which as far as I know is widely discussed within the radical Left, is not notable betrays only his ignorance on the subject. Furthermore, to argue that there is a COI issue because “The article was written by Inclusive Democracy people” shows that he is far from being unbiased on the matter (despite his declared sole ambition “to identify bias” in wikipedia when he registered as a user, just a couple of weeks ago, and one of his first acts was to identify bias in this particular entry!). It is well known that this is a general practice in Wikipedia which, unlike the “ordinary” encyclopedias, do not engage established bodies of experts to write the entries. This is particularly true of wikipedia entries on new political projects, journals etc. which are bound to be written by people involved in them (has he examined for instance the Parecon entries?). This is not bad by itself, as long as the entries are not just eulogies but aim to give a fair description of the topic. Who else is expected to have a fairly comprehensive view of a new political project like Inclusive Democracy or Parecon but people involved in them who are best qualified to write the relevant entries and then to leave it to unbiased qualified users—an extremely difficult operation anyway as far as controversial topics like politics is concerned—to suggest additions/amendments etc?

User:narap43 11:23, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Drake Dun, i'm not an ID man. In case you still «BELIEVE» that I’m, you MUST to prove it RIGHT NOW. Unless your comment aimed to make anybody wishing to make a comment for non-deletion think twice before doing so, unless he wants to be labelled an ID sympathiser by you.

User:TouristPhilosopher 17:33, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• «Mr» Drake Dun

>>> First you write: «The only two people who have objected to its deletion here are also Inclusive Democracy people».

>>> my answer: the meaning of YOUR words here is that you ARE SURE.

When I said that I’m not an ID man and asked you to prove what you said:

>>> you write: «there is obviously some connection»

>>> my answer: I didn’t ask you to tell us if there is any connection or better if YOU SEE or IMAGINE any connection. I ask you to PROVE WHAT YOU SAID TO YOUR PREVIOUS POST — and you said that I’Μ ΑΝ ID MAN. But you CAN’T prove anything. FIRST you see an ID man, now –a day later- you see SOME CONNECTION. Tomorrow you could SEE a loose connection and after a week or month nothing. Its better to «fix» yourself with the reality and stop BELIEVING what you like.

>>> you write: «I suppose it is possible that you are not one of the people at the center of ID, but rather a very enthusiastic supporter. But I really doubt it.»

>>> my answer: so shut up till you are sure !!!

PS1. I expect a «sorry» because you called me ID man. PS2. Your comments are not dispassionate, and betray an obvious emotional investment AGAINST ID. You registered a user account 2 months ago and except some minor comments this one is your first attempt to delete A WHOLE article. Like many of the people outside the center of the ID Project, you are a native English speaker or at least speak fluent English. I suppose it is possible that you are not one of the people who tried in the past to delete the ID article of wiki, but rather a very enthusiastic supporter AGAINST ID. But I really doubt it.

User:TouristPhilosopher 15:22, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Additional factual corrections: (1) I registered my user account three months ago. (2) This is not my first AfD nomination. My first AfD nomination was for Deception in the Unification Church. (3) I have no bias for or against ID, and have never previously nominated any ID related articles for deletion. A look at my history of contributions will quickly dispel any such notions. Drake Dun 16:23, 21 January 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.