Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anarchopedia 3rd nomination

Anarchopedia

Non notable wiki. Fails WP:V and WP:WEB. Article was deleted in February 2005 but later recreated. Article went through afd again in october 2005 but result was no consensus. Additional info: The site receives 83,100 google hits and has an alexa ranking of 502,746. Peephole 16:32, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lots of recent AfDs have questioned the validity of WP:WEB (not taking sides myself), so I will instead highlight the lack of verifiability (from reliable sources) of almost the entire content of this article. From perusing the google search results, I'm finding it difficult to see how this website can meet WP's clear verifiability standards. Even the most strident inclusionists will surely accept that unverifiable information is unwelcome in WP. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 17:08, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:WEB and WP:V. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:10, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
keep on WP:WEB, a site is considered notable if "The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself". This is the case, as authors contribute their texts from other sources to anarchopedia. As to verifiability, the spanish version of Anarcopedia states its priciples in terms very similar to those in the article.In english, refer to

http://meta.anarchopedia.org/Anarchopedia:en:itself http://meta.anarchopedia.org/Anarchopedia:en:Sysops and http://meta.anarchopedia.org/Anarchopedia:en:direct_democracy

(just placed those as references)

Besides, an article about anarcopedia is relevant as aid to the definition of wikipedia itself http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_an_experiment_in_anarchy

Cold Light 22:18, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Those arent sources independent from the site itself.--Peephole 23:42, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

response Yes ... But can't we have the site as a source even for determining it's own stated goals ? Cold Light 16:00, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

cleanup Now the article has a lot o' extra information. Still waiting for a definition on whether the Anarchopedia can, itself, be a source about the goals, and evaluations of their success.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 15:49, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE 500k Alexa rating = no visitors. lots of issues | leave me a message 23:01, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

verifiability. on the talk about "reliable sources", it apears that a site can be a reliable souce, as far as its own goals are concerned. So, unless the claims on the article do not fall under the "goal statment", or other consensus is reached on the talk page about rebiable sources, i think the verifiablity is established (rebiable sources discussion at [1])

Cold Light 00:02, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ps: not quite sure that the number of visits establishes the fact that a site is no notable ... WP:WEB (as quoted above) has a paragragh about "non trivial contribuitions ..." that seems to establish the notability of the site