Deletion of Anti-capitalism

Comment: I see no good reason for changing the name of the page. The term easily passes  and isn't likely to cause |controversy. See http://books.google.com/books?id=KoEnAQAAIAAJ, http://books.google.com/books?id=FVe3AAAAIAAJ, http://www.studiesinanti-capitalism.net/Documents_files/Anti-Capitalism%20Theory%20and%20Practice.pdf, http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=%22Anti-capitalism%22 etc
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary (WP:NEO||WP:POVFORK)

Comment: The claim made in the nomination is that this list contains Blatant Original Research and Synthesis.  The list is about movements or ideologies that are or have significant anti-capitalism elements.  Given that, what are the Blatant OR and SYN parts of this article?  The major anti-capitalism sources cited address all these list entries in some form.  I have not reviewed every fact in the article, but none struck me as unverifiable or made up.  Clearly more citations are needed , but that’s article improvement, not a reason for deletion.  So restated a bit more succinctly, Where is the Blatant OR in this article?, in other words, what have the editors added to the major sections relative to Anti-Capitalism that is not verifiable in the Anti-Capitalism related references?  In other words again, what new conclusions are they drawing, not supported by sources related to the subject.   is equally clear about what Synthesis is as a WP policy.  Where is the Blatant Synthesis in this article?  What conclusions are the editors making from two or more sources that is not supported by a reliable source in its own right?. What position are they advancing that is not supported by sources.  Whether or not it is Blatant , there may indeed be OR and SYN in this article, but the nominator has not yet made that case
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:SYN||WP:AGF)

Comment: This is a valid subject for an article, as proven by the links to anti-capitalist sources at the bottom. Poor quality is |not a valid reason for deletion, nor is the first Ghit pointing here (http://www.google.com/search?q=Otter example
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:RUBBISH)