Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/New chronology fomenko


 * 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 on a Votes for Undeletion nomination).  No further edits should be made to this page.  

The result of the debate was DELETE.  Rob e  rt  01:13, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

New chronology fomenko
''Not enough votes. Relisting. R e  dwolf24  (talk) 01:42, 1 October 2005 (UTC)''

This page is mainly the personal opinion of the user Franck ver Stut on a topic already covered at New Chronology (Fomenko). The text is rambling, unencyclopedic and POV. The page was previously blanked and redirect to the main page on the New Chronology, but Franck ver Stut reestablished the page, calling the other one 'subversive'. As the page title is unlikely to be accidently linked to, it is better that this page is deleted Oswax 06:28, 21 September 2005 (UTC) Don't delete The anti-Fomenko article is but a massive damage control machination staged by history undergraduates in search of credits. Most of the counterarguments advanced thereof are non-scientific hearsay albeit orderly structured. Franck ver Stut -- (preceding unsigned comment by )
 * Delete. The topic is covered adequately at New Chronology (Fomenko). TheMadBaron 12:45, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Redirect to New Chronology (Fomenko). Not having to guess the parentheses can only be helpful, until MediaWiki gets a decent 'Go' button. -Splash talk 23:03, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
 * It was formerly redirected, but Franck ver Stut reinstated the page. Nothing links to it so there is no harm in it being wholly removed. Oswax 09:59, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
 * The more reasonable redirects the better ··gracefool |&#9786; 19:01, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, protect, admonish user. No opinion on the redirect. MCB 02:11, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. This article pales in comparison to New Chronology (Fomenko), though I'm not saying it's at Featured Article-level.  There's no hope in rewriting the article, it's a poorly-made duplicate of an existing article, and there are no pages that link to it, so there would be no use in redirecting.  I would suggest protecting the page if/when it is deleted, as it is likely to be brought back. -Nameneko 05:16, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, see first vote. Choess 01:42, 2 October 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.