Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Assassination market

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 no consensus. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 00:07, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Assassination market

Contested prod (no reason given by de-prodder apart from the prod being "false" whatever that means). A weird mishmash of sci-fci and unsourced conspiracy theory-esque OR. I cannot see a way to make it encyclopedic but here we are Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 23:04, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not supported by any reliable sources to establish notability or verify the content Nick-D (talk) 00:59, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Was any effort made to verify the contents of the article and establish notability per WP:BEFORE? Skomorokh 02:01, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you very much Skomorokh, for this very relevant question. Power.corrupts (talk) 17:07, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wow, I've never seen so many citation needed tags in one article. Seems like someone's private soapbox to me. Fuzbaby (talk) 04:20, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unsourced original research. (Though Nick-D says it a lot better.) Edward321 (talk) 15:19, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~. I checked it out a few days ago when it was prodded. The suggestion was indeed made by an anarcho-capitalist and seems to have some currency still among fringe libertarians, but no reliable sources picked up on it and by our standards it isn't a notable idea. It isn't original research, but it's still not worth having an article about. It's basically a schoolboy fantasy about getting your own back on the government. Fences&Windows 01:12, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Sick? - yes. Disgusting? - true. Professional help recommended? - no doubt. Yet there are sources. A better search term is "Assassination politics" bell because a James Dalton Bell seems to have coined the idea based on an idea of anon. digital cash coined by Timothy May. Found two RS books in Gbooks, and Gscholar returns some scholary mention. Fences and windows, it may be a schoolboy fantasy (schoolgirl), but it is given mention in 3rd party RS. I will add the sources to the article now. Most of the claims in the article can be supported, so many of the cite and OR tags can go, I just dont have any interest in this field. Power.corrupts (talk) 17:17, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment --- they can go if cites are provided. As it stands the article had/s many totally unsourced claims. As an aside, as to the 'sick' nature of the article --- that isn't my concern at all. It is merely the topics notability. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 05:47, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. Hess' book is copied word-for-word from Thomas and Loader's. I've removed it. Clarke et al. only refer to it without discussing it.[1]. This is a good source:[2]. So we have one book chapter and one journal article. I can't find any more. If this is enough to keep the article, it needs to be retitled as Assassination politics. Fences&Windows 20:58, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fences, respectfully I re-introduce the ref. Wikipedia's notability guidelines concern multiple indenpendent mention in RS. Two book refs therefore confirm multiple independent mention - sure, one book copies the other, but their infringement on copyright is irrelevant in this WP:N context. Power.corrupts (talk) 09:46, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Quoting two books in this way would be like saying you had multiple sources if an Associated Press wire story was used by several newspapers verbatim. Without acknowledging the duplication, it's not honest to the reader. Fences&Windows 00:41, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on poor process I would like to put to the record, that the AfD nominee Bigdaddy1981 (talk · contribs) has edited the article before this AfD nomination. Before the edits, the article had two fact tags and one reference. After Bigdaddy's edits, the article had nine fact tags and four OR tags, and the reference was gone. This is a concern, as some of the delete !votes above narrowly refer to the presence of those tags, and take them at face value, while in reality, they seem to reflect nominee bias and a lack of searching for sources.Power.corrupts (talk) 10:12, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The prod was removed for being false in that it stated that the article was "unsourced" and this was blatantly false. I have just added a citation and there seem to be plenty more sources out there for this notable concept. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:12, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I wonder whether I'm reading the same article as the delete votes... --Gwern (contribs) 17:01 27 June 2009 (GMT)

Keep - Enough notable according to the provided sources Rirunmot (talk) 01:06, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:39, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The provided references seem sufficient, even if only sufficient.--Talain (talk) 02:51, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A mention in a couple of fringey books doesn't say notability to me. Niteshift36 (talk) 09:07, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Many sources available denoting subject matter is important and noteworthy, an interesting subject just waiting for an enterprising editor to spruce the article up.--Gloriamarie (talk) 15:27, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a very dubious article, reads more like a hoax or draft of fiction than something to be considered for article status here. doktorb _words^deeds 18:30, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment --- I see that my good faith is being questioned without any grounds. Here is one of the totally unsourced passages I tagged as OR or citation needed: "Timothy C. May, Carl Johnson and Matthew Taylor later developed the protocols to implement the concept online to the point that the IRS, the FBI and the U.S. Secret Service investigated their motives for doing so. The US Secret Service circulated copies of 'Assassination Politics' and the relevant Wired articles in 2002. During investigations authorities pretended to be sympathizers in emails and posed as ISP representatives. Does user Powercorrupts REALLY think that this need not be sourced. I think it borders on fringe lunacy that bringes the wikipedia into disrepute. I note that no-one has been able to provide any such sources (I looked -- although the onus of establishing notability doesn't actually lie with the nominator). If Powercorrupts objects to my edits; he is free to add sources or revert them. That might be a better approach than coming here with his sly innuendoes. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 03:08, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unnotable, fringe phenomenon at best. Eusebeus (talk) 21:29, 29 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.