Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/World civil war (concept)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] World civil war (concept)
Notability is not confirmed for this article Ecoleetage (talk) 02:07, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
- Hmmm...anyone want to chime in? (Five days after the article was listed and no takers...is it my breath?) :) Ecoleetage (talk) 01:26, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 17:13, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
- Delete. A fascinating theory, but a google search turns up little that's relevant. Looks more like an essay. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 17:35, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Ditto the Tiger. I did the same search and didn't come up with much; the term doesn't exactly seem to be in common use. And the sources in the article aren't really sources, they're links to other Wikipedia articles. Townlake (talk) 17:39, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per Dennisthe2. Spell4yr (talk) 18:11, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
- Weak delete with the WP:HEY criteria being that someone would have to verify and then properly cite the Oswald Spengler and Arthur Schlesinger Jr. references. Also please note the disambig page World civil war, whose existence is questionable already (only one bluelink, to this page; the other thing it "disambiguates" against is not a bluelink), would need to be deleted as well if this AfD results in delete. --Jaysweet (talk) 18:42, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
- Clarify: After reading SWik78's comments below, I think I should clarify that by "verify"ing the sources in question, I also meant verifying that the article is accurately echoing these views, rather than synthesizing new concepts from their work. If SWik is correct, the WP:HEY criteria I suggested are unsatisfiable. --Jaysweet (talk) 18:52, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Besides the fact that the claims are not verified through reliable sources, the concepts presented by the different "historians" in the article are not universally the same, meaning that under the same moniker of "World civil war", they describe substantially different concepts. Basically, the article is mostly the author's own synthesis of previously published material in order to present a common bond which is not immediately apparent and the connection that does exist between the different concepts is very loose, bordering on tangential. As such, the author's synthesis of this material is a violation of WP:OR. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 18:47, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
