This appears to be a source text. This should rather be on Wikisource. ViperSnake151 (talk) 14:11, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Keep Seems to be intended as an evolving text. If this is pretty much identical to the original FAQ and the original is uploaded to WS, then we can delete this. The content here seems to be incomplete.

It might, however, be worth renaming this to distinguish it from the original FAQ. --Swift (talk) 08:18, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Comment - It appears Vipersnake151 has already started to post this on wikisource. --Retropunk (talk) 04:20, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Keep, although it's a little bit annoying that they have so many redlinks in such a huge TOC. I have sincere doubts that any new author will see such a daunting task list and be able to do anything about it. Time will tell if I am wrong or right, however. --Whiteknight (Page) (Talk) 16:27, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Keep. Wikifying it here allows for further developments of the text. I invested about an hour in wikifying a few chapters, if more people did the same the redlinks would soon disappear. --LibertarianLibrarian (talk) 17:47, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I think it's more of an issue of where it belong rather than if the text ever gets developed. -- Retropunk (talk) 00:59, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I think the overall impression is that it is intended as a developing text, not simply a reproduction, so it belongs here. How does the decision making process work? When can we remove it from the list of deletion candidates? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.13.72.177 (discuss • contribs) 11:49, 26 May 2009

An admin will close the discussion once the community has decided what to do. It'd be helpful to hear from the contributors to this text whether it's intended to be a source text, or a developing textbook.  — Mike.lifeguard | ^talk 00:27, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

First off, Transwiki to http://anarchistwiki.wikia.com/wiki/Anarchist_Wiki, to http://wiki.infoshop.org/Anarchist_FAQ, or to another wiki related to the subject. Regardless of where it's supposed to be, you'll want to do that since specialist wikis are more suitable for this kind of topics; perhaps you could even revive or activate the wiki. As for the article itself, it's not presented in a textbook format, but rather an FAQ format; as such, it may not be suitable within Wikibooks. I'm not sure if it would work in WikiSource, but it would need to be peer-reviewed or published formally for inclusion; but there's enough references that it may work anyway. --Sigma 7 (talk) 20:23, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

This was previously nominated for deletion in 2009; it was kept, on the hope that it would evolve significantly from the source material. However it hasn't. There have only been a handful of edits since 2009, most of them simply importing from the source or wikifying.

However my main concern is one that I don't really see addressed in the previous discussion, that of POV. I removed an NPOV template from one of the modules since the adder gave no specific objections, however I then looked over most of the book, and realized why the didn't. Pretty much the whole book is POV and there's no way I can see to making it NPOV; it's really just a soapbox.

On account of this issue and on account of the fact that it hasn't be developed, I suggest deletion, possibly moving to Wikisource, though I'm not sure it really belongs there either. (My impression was the WS was more for things that didn't originate online, but that's something for the WS community to decide.) --Quintucket (discuss • contribs) 15:57, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

The nominator last time had began to copy it to Wikisource, but Wikisource:An Anarchist FAQ is even less developed. POV is a reason to improve a book, rather than a reason to delete. In the context of Anarchism, how is the book not neutral? --darklama 22:09, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

My point is that I don't think the book can ever be made NPOV, precisely because, as the Anarchist FAQ, it is intended to answer questions about anarchism from an Anarchist's position. Imagine if I created a book called the "Creation Science FAQ." There are plenty of those on the internet, the problem is that every one of them contains arguments that are very easily debunked. Now that's an extreme example, and though most of the claims anarchism are an opinion, the problem is the same: The goal is to have a book which prevents the opinion of of one side.

Now, a guide to world political systems would be NPOV, but there's no way this could be turned into that. Even a book on the history of anarchism might be made NPOV, though it would require somebody who cares enough to contribute to a work on anarchism who isn't an anarchist, or is at least a fair-minded anarchist.

Even then, if I were to write a book on anarchism (I'd probably do that if you paid me, though I don't care much about fringe political factions), there's no way I'd use this as a basis. (I probably wouldn't even use it as a reference.) That would requite a complete reorganization of the book, deletion of many chapters, and complete rewrites of pretty much all the others, and move to a new title. Unless somebody wants to do that, and that specifically, not write a new book on Anarchism from scratch, (and in two years, we can't even get anybody to contribute to a defense of anarchism), there's absolutely no point in keeping it.

What we have is an FAQ, copied pretty much verbatim two years ago from an anarchist website, with no attempts to improve it. Wikibooks is a place for texbooks, not a soapbox for textbook-length political manifestos. --Quintucket (discuss • contribs) 22:56, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

WB:NPOV describes NPOV as depending on a book's scope. A book with the scope of Anarchism from an Anarchist's POV is neutral as long as the mainstream view of Anarchist is represented in what is taught, that is if the book is to teach mainstream Anarchism. A book about Anarchism doesn't need to cover other political systems to be considered neutral. A book on Intelligent Design or Creationism would be within scope as well. Wikibooks has Biblical Studies and other books about Religion. OTOH a book with the intended scope to cover world political systems would not be considered NPOV if there was no attempt to teach the many political systems that exist. --darklama 23:30, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't see where in the NPOV policy it would permit a POV book. Religion and Biblical studies are both legitimate fields of study (and I'm speaking as an unabashed atheist here), in the same way that political science is. In fact I met a few students doing majoring in religious studies when I was in college who were also nontheists. Now, a book called "Why the Bible is True," would specifically advocate a specific viewpoint, and therefore be NPOV. Quoting WB:SOAP:

Wikibooks is not a soapbox, or a vehicle for propaganda and advertising. Therefore, Wikibooks modules are not:

1. propaganda or advocacy of any kind. Wikibooks modules must always adhere to the neutral point of view. You might wish to go to Usenet or start your own blog if you want to convince people of the merits of your favourite views.
2. personal essays that state your particular opinions about a topic. Wikibooks is not a vehicle to make personal opinions become part of human knowledge.

This book is of course nothing but personal essays and propaganda. Each page is an implausible leading question, (e.g.Why are anarchists in favour of equality?) used as an excuse to write an essay. --Quintucket (discuss • contribs) 23:49, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

I will agree with you that Anarchist FAQ has many NPOV issues, the naming isn't ideal, nor is the formatting of the book. However, I don't see it as grounds for definite deletion. As outlined in Introduction to Philosophy/Anarchism, Anarchism is a valid political ideology with roots in history. I would certainly support books on Liberalism, Conservatism, Feminism, Socialism, etc. To vote for the deletion of Anarchism based on its status as a radical and minority political ideal, and therefore less "legitimate" than any study of Theism, would in itself be a question of NPOV.

The general actions of wikibookians seem to err on the side of salvaging works. Since this book is clearly unfinished and abandoned, I would instead support keeping the book and tagging it with NPOV and expand markers. My next action would be either adopting the book and fixing the NPOV by developing a new scope for the book, or simply suggesting those moves on the talk page for the book, hoping others will one day take notice. --Thereen (discuss • contribs) 09:20, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

I disagree with the opinion that a POV book is impossible at Wikibooks, and concur with Darklama assertion that the POV depends on how the scope is set. Having said this I must note that on Wikibooks a book scope and its community is not static, and so over time it may evolve.

I would oppose for instance your option of tagging it as a NPOV violation, if you did not commit at least to make a some effort to put the work in the a NPOV path. The few times I placed NPOV violation tags were when there was a evident distortion of reality or suppression of divergent views, no editor is obligated to cater to views he objects, but the NPOV requirement to me means the need to at least state that other views exist, unless the scope makes that requirement unnecessary and these are extremely rare. In the book targeted by the RfD a quick look at it only identifies a few pages that may have problems "Section C - What are the myths of capitalist economics?" and pages on the A.5 section. I did a quick read of Section C and did not find any major NPOV problems...

I'm opposed to the deletion. --Panic (discuss • contribs) 20:45, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

I too am opposed to the deletion of this book. --Thereen (discuss • contribs) 23:24, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

opposed Blatantly POV material should be removed but if we allow religious books then other books of a controversial religious or political nature should be allowed.--ЗAНИA ^talk 14:49, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

I am opposed to the deletion. Agreed that it is under-developed and contains some POV but it is a good template for a book on the topic. --Paul James (discuss • contribs) 10:21, 20 March 2012 (UTC)