Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Revolution within the form

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 of the debate was DELETE. This seems to be the significantly dominant position before the rewrite, after the rewrite and altogether. -Splashtalk 00:18, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Revolution within the form

This was created by WHEELER with the full knowledge that it is original research and not appropriate on Wikipedia. Let's Delete this. --Improv 17:49, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. Just zis Guy you know? 23:38, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Nikodemos 02:09, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia's use of the term "original research" helps to debase the notions of originality and research. Meanwhile, delete this stuff. -- Hoary 08:22, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, roughly in line with nomination, though agreeing with Hoary. It's not that the article says anything terribly wrong, but there's no recognised term of the sort used for its title, and some of its claims about individual writers are far from uncontroversial. I notice also that it contains a red link to "classical republic", which anyone who knws WHEELER's history will recognise... --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:17, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Make External link. I ask that you all vote to make this an external link. I don't want you to be stealing stuff. I have caught you people trying to "Article laundering" in defiance of GNU license.WHEELER 23:18, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
    • What's this Kwisatz Haderach? No bibliography, no references, no scholary input, no academic overview and this is not Original Research but "Revolution within the Form" is???

When doing a Google Search there are many hits on this. Original research. Bah-humbug.WHEELER 23:23, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

      • The difference between the two is that your essay, interesting though it is (and surprisingly, a few of my IRL friends who are also greek have expressed similar sentiments), comes to conclusions of its own, while things like Kwisatz Haderach (personally I find it odd we even have articles on characters) are more of a descriptive thing. I don't think anyone here is saying that your writing is bad, it just isn't suitable for the kind of project Wikipedia is. You can be proud to have a well-argued, well-researched perspective, and if I were you I'd certainly make it available to the world somewhere, I just don't think here is the place. Take care. --Improv 08:56, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: Wikipedia is not a link farm. Make deleted is good, make external link is unacceptable. Just zis Guy you know? 23:28, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: It's an important concept and WP should have some mention of it. Words change their meaning over time, sometimes by natural development, sometimes by design. However, I suspect this would be much better written as an article (or article section) on diachronic pragmatics. WP's current treatment of historical linguistics seems unhelpful.--Nema Fakei 00:32, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: "Many" Google hits? I see only 687 [1]. -- Nikodemos 05:41, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:NOR. Verifiability is in question also. Stifle 09:56, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I have removed the original research part of this article, which was normative rather than descriptive. What remains is a discussion of a concept named by Garet Garrett and its historical antecedents. I am not sure this is notable enough to be encyclopedic, but it is no longer the original-research essay that it was previously. I would tend to think it is not notable -- the phrase only comes up twice each in books.google.com and scholar.google.com and 291 times in general Google search -- but perhaps it is important enough to parts of the Old Right to be worth mentioning. --Macrakis 15:03, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
Thanks Macrakis. And you are also right in "...it is important enough to parts of the Old Right to be worth mentioning." Thanks for your work and for pointing out that this info is also important to a small minority of people---maybe not for the General Public---but for the few remaining out here, Thanks.WHEELER 00:12, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. The phrase and its meaning might merit a mention in the article on Garrett, but it doesn't seem to be a term used by many other than him. - SimonP 00:41, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep or merge - verifiable and potentially useful to users of the encyclopedia. BD2412 T 01:21, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. While Macrakis' edits have done much to make the article less POV, the article is essentially about a relatively uncommon neologism. At best, perhaps some mention of the term could be made in the Garrett article and the term redirected there. older ≠ wiser 02:08, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. This concept seems to have a pretty small following in the world at large. It only pulls about 145 unique Google hits, several of which are due to the promotion of the term by WHEELER himself: [2]. The idea could be concisely and comfortably expressed and placed in context in a few sentences of Garet Garrett, if WHEELER is so moved. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:25, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
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.