Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Victorism


 * 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 Speedy Deleted by Splash. &Euml;vilphoenix Burn! 04:29, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Victorism
Relisting this AfD because the article was recreated. The references cited are all fake, too. Recommend a delete followed by a protect from recreation order. Z iggurat 01:25, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete While it was recreated after consensus to delete, it is probably not speediable as the problem was that it was original research, and this appears to be a different version. Of course, as I don't have sysop powers, I can't check that for sure.  Sonic Mew | talk to me 01:50, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment - it's pretty similar to the original (from memory), but this one is also very OR / unverifiable / advertisement of freesite. As I noted, none of the references actually exist, and were probably added to muddy the waters of the AfD discussion. Z iggurat  01:57, 25 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I listed for speedy, as was jsut debated on and deleted yesterday. If cannot be speedy, then vote delete. &mdash; Gaff  ταλκ 03:31, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
 * You might be a month off there, it was September, not October 24th. &Euml;vilphoenix Burn! 04:27, 25 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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

 This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further 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 (users with first edits discounted) --Doc (?) 22:33, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Victorism
No relevant search results, original research if I'm not mistaken Rx StrangeLove 03:35, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete Original research, but their hearts are in the right place! Ziggurat 11:59, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete original nutjobery. — Phil Welch 21:43, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep  -- comment from User:128.117.68.53 
 * not original there are 6 sources!, I could find a lot of info on it on the web very interesting makes a lot of sense -- comment from User:Chenlikang 
 * Delete no redeaming knowledge content. Pete.Hurd 05:48, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep Keep this awesome article! -- comment from User:128.117.68.53 
 * Keep The best philosophy I read in years!   -- comment from User:128.117.68.53 
 * delete per nominator -- ( &#x263A; drini &#x266B; | &#x260E; ) 01:20, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep Obviously not a piece of original research--bibliography cites six sources. ChXu 01:28, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
 * keep An excellent and informative article on a highly influential philosophy that is reshaping the modern world. 71.208.85.84 04:15, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep A fascinating in-depth description of Victorism, a highly developed political and social model that has merited a Wikipedia article for years, considering how widespread its influence, support, and recognition have become. PabloX 00:17, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
 * The keep votes are all first-edits, for those of you keeping track. Delete. --fvw *  00:29, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
 * KeepI have read this article on the 22nd and I think this is a great well thought article on what could be the next world order.JohnRusteforid this is the users first edit Rx StrangeLove 23:50, 23 September 2005 (UTC)


 * KeepI am a philosopher at Harvard and though I think it is not well written it deserves a spot on Wikipedia and if well-written, may have a chance in the real world* unsigned comment by user:KokonMan132, the users first edit. Rx StrangeLove 23:54, 23 September 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.