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 Keep. Michig (talk) 08:47, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin_Carson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:ABOUTSELF Darkstar1st (talk) 02:52, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 February 28. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 03:03, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

the creator of the article is currently blocked [1] Darkstar1st (talk) 03:40, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

another frequent contributor is also blocked [2] 03:50, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article was created ten years ago. Pax 05:12, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - already went over this May 2009 and I think the same reasons apply. Also, the nominating editor (recently featured on ANI) has a rather controversial track record of erasing content that appears to go against their very vocal personal politics, e.g. to summarize/paraphrase: libertarians just can't be socialists because then they don't want liberty so libertarian socialism clearly isn't a thing. There's an ongoing POV issue. fi (talk) 06:28, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

no we have not been over this. thie current nomination is wp:aboutself, a separate issue from wp:bio, which is about notability in secondary sources. wp:bio does still apply as the article describes him primarily as a political theorist although the only source for such is himself and he is not widely known as such. here is a list of notable theorist: [3]. this nomination is about using sources as sources on themselves, aka wp:aboutself. such is not prohibited, as long as the article is not based primarily on such sources, which the vast majority of this article is, save the mention of his work as poorly researched/understood: familiarity with this list of libertarian authors seems to have been wasted on Carson. Darkstar1st (talk) 16:16, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Then go to the talk page and suggest how to go about replacing these sources with better ones, which are plentiful. That merits a partial rewrite at most, not deletion. What made you think this is the appropriate way to voice your concerns? fi (talk) 07:16, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:04, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:04, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:05, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - it is easy to find 'realiable' sources.Jonpatterns (talk) 22:05, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

you are correct because the internet is full of stuff written by Kevin, which is the problem, Kevin is the only one writing about Kevin and you just added another source [4] about Kevin WRITTEN BY KEVIN!!!Darkstar1st (talk) 22:36, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It was also published by a reliable source.Jonpatterns (talk) 08:48, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

true, yet has nothing to do with wp:aboutself which allows using a source as a source on themselves, AS LONG AS THE ARTICLE IS NOT BASED ON SUCH PRIMARILY. the vast majority of sources are the source itself, if other sources exist, plz improve the article, if not it should go. Darkstar1st (talk) 11:53, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ABOUTSELF is not a deletion reason: it is about sources. If the article is based primarily on self-published sources, then either add or delete sufficient material to restore the balance. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 13:15, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I'm unfamiliar with the subject or the background of the nom/participants. I note however that primary sources are more or less irrelevant for notability purposes. It looks like he may be notable, but it would help to see some good secondary sources. In the article there look to be a couple academic papers talking about his work, but it's indeed predominantly primary (which means the article will need to be seriously edited assuming it's kept). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:42, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Darkstar; subject has just not become that notable of a figure, even within the niche context of anarchist writers. E.g., compare to, say, Adam Kokesh. Pax 05:41, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Per the original deletion discussion in 2009, there were 3 articles that meet the requirement of significant coverage in reliable sources of Carson's writings:

• http://mises.org/library/kevin-carson-dr-jekyll-and-mr-hyde
• http://canadiandimension.com/articles/1769
• http://www.libertarian.co.uk/lapubs/econn/econn108.htm (Google cache)

It doesn't seem to have unduly attracted self-promotion, spam or speculation, which I consider to be the main purpose of the general notability guidelines.

--Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 13:15, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

general notability is not the issue , rather wp:aboutself which allows sources as sources on themselves, as long as they are not the majority. around 20 of the 22 sources are Kevin on Kevin, the others are less than flattering, one even appears to question his knowledge on the topic. Darkstar1st (talk) 13:53, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Notability is an issue I raised. It is my reason for concluding we should keep the article.
• You have mentioned WP:ABOUTSELF several times. I see how you can use that part of the Verifiability policy to say that the article is unbalanced or even biased. It would make the discussion go more easily if you could explain why you see it as a reason for the article to be deleted.

--Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 11:29, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

thank you for the correction, i meant to say WP:PROMOTION

• 1. Advocacy, propaganda, or recruitment of any kind: commercial, political... the state has also transferred wealth to the wealthy...He believes that Tucker overlooked this issue...Carson has also been highly critical of intellectual property...The primary focus of his most recent work...Carson defines capitalism in historical terms...He does not define capitalism in the idealized sense...when he talks about "capitalism" he is referring to what he calls actually existing capitalism...Carson says he is deliberately choosing to resurrect...He claims that the term capitalism, as it was originally used... Carson holds that Capitalism, arising as a new class... Carson argues that in a truly laissez-faire...Carson argues the centralization of wealth... i made it about a 1/3 of the way thru. a big collection of what Kevin thinks by Kevin. Darkstar1st (talk) 12:26, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is reasonable for articles about political writers to include what the writer thinks, by the writer. For example, see Cory_Doctorow#Opinions_on_intellectual_property. But I agree with you and Finx (fi) that there is bias in favor of Carson's views in this article (aka advocacy). I merely disagree about the remedy. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 13:27, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

advocacy is certainly enough to delete an article and this article has baggage, wikipedias largest sock drawer [5] this article was created by multiple banned editors sharing multiple accounts all n a narrow band of political articles. the site where there posts are made is definitely an advocacy group, [6] The Center For a Stateless Society, a Left Market Anarchist Think Tank and Media Center Darkstar1st (talk) 14:02, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, there are sufficient reliable sources that give the subject significant coverage that are not written by the source to pass WP:GNG. As for the issues with the article, please see WP:NOTCLEANUP. While one can argue WP:TNT, I think it's far easier to fix any issues that may have arisen in the article, as it stands, thus preserving any valid content in at least the article's history, and work to make a better article, not just delete it.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 03:58, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

the coverage of him not by him is less than flattering and notable to a tiny minority, from the two sources not KC: familiarity with this list of libertarian authors seems to have been wasted on Carson. source 13 Block, Walter. Kevin Carson as Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde. ...I take issue with Carson’s claim that the principle of self-ownership alone is insufficient to decide among these rival theories of landed property. source 14 Long, Roderick. Land-locked: A Critique of Carson on Property Rights. Darkstar1st (talk) 04:16, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep It is clear that the current version of the article relies far too heavily on self-published sources, but that fact is not by itself a compelling argument for deletion. The question here is the notability of the topic, and I believe that the coverage in the American Conservative and the Journal of Libertarian Studies establishes notability. The fact that some of the coverage is "less than flattering" is irrelevant. People who are widely criticized can certainly be notable. And with nearly 4.8 million articles on this encyclopedia, it should be clear that millions of notable topics are of interest only to a "tiny minority". Notability does not mean that the topic is of interest to the majority, or even a minority of a magnitude that the nominator judges as more than "tiny". Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:49, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

all of the keeps agree the article is poorly written, 20 of 22 sources are blog posts by Kevin on Kevins views, all posts appear in a Left-market anarchist blog that ...seeks to enlarge public understanding and transform public perceptions of anarchism, while reshaping academic and movement debate, through the production and distribution of market anarchist media content... per wp:tnt: Sometimes, the damage is fixable, but the effort in doing so dwarfs the effort involved in merely starting over. Can anyone really say fixing this article would be easier than compiling the scant few sources not written by Kevin and creating the stub it would be? This article is advocacy of a political theory created by sockpuppets all working on related topics. Darkstar1st (talk) 06:43, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please link the sockpuppet investigation. I thought the blocks were related to shared accounts, but perhaps I misunderstood. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 14:24, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

excellent point, not sock puppet, a group. Why would a group of people use one account? Why are all of the edits about a narrow band of ideology? How much of the article is objective?

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.