Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mimetic desire


 * 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 delete. W.marsh 04:24, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Mimetic desire

 * - (View AfD) (View log)

I'm nominating this article for deletion because it seems largely unverified and mostly seems to consist of the personal opinion of the author, which violates WP:NPOV and WP:OR. It has been tagged for wikification since April 2006 and tagged for cleanup for copyediting for over a month and yet despite the efforts of myself, and others, is still a huge block of text that is barely understandable and seems to have been a straight copy-paste of an essay. I don't think this article is fixable, judging by the ratio of personal opinions to verifiable facts within it. Veesicle (Talk) (Contribs) 05:07, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - too much theorizing, not much hope of cleanup IMO. Milto LOL pia 05:47, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * LOL, love your edit summary --Veesicle (Talk) (Contribs) 06:00, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I got the idea from K37 Milto LOL pia 06:06, 22 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete, WP:V, WP:OR. Terence Ong 12:31, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. Large chunks are copyvios from here, an essay by Girard. Squiddy | (squirt ink?)  13:27, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Has references but is copyied with no chance of fixing.--Dacium 23:05, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of philosophy-related deletions.   --  &rArr;  bsnowball  10:52, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
 * keep with major cleanup or re-direct to René Girard until someone can make a real article out of it. im(ns)ho girad is a fool, but his foolishness has legs, esp. this bit of it. example, Philippe Lacoue-Labarthe's major work on mimesis is in large part a quite robust response to this very 'theory' &rArr; bsnowball  10:52, 23 January 2007 (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.