Login
Login

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Revolutions of 2009

: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. –Juliancolton | Talk 05:14, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

=[[Revolutions of 2009]]=

:{{la|Revolutions of 2009}} ([{{fullurl:Revolutions of 2009|wpReason={{urlencode: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Revolutions of 2009}}&action=delete}} delete]) – (View AfD)(View log)

No evidence from WP:RS indicating this term has gained widespread use. Even if this had been the case, the article appears to be original research that has POV issues. --Kinu t/c 04:15, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

:Delete - for reasons above. JCutter (talk) 04:45, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

:Keep Mimzy1990 (talk) 07:29, 9 May 2009 (UTC) — Mimzy1990 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

::This isn't a vote. Please provide a policy/guideline-based rationale as to why you think this article should be kept. --Kinu t/c 17:52, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

  • Delete - Original research without evidence that the incidents mentioned are indeed Revolutions. The Governor of Texas' proposal of secession from the US is nothing new and is not revolutionary in itself. Now if Texas was to actually secede - and do so with force - then we could consider an article. But that article would still not be called "Revolutions of 2009" (or whatever year). Beeswaxcandle (talk) 07:58, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete. This isn't history, it's a case of one editor's political wishful thinking. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 08:10, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete the term is not widely used, the article is badly written and hardly sourced, (some of the sources are questionable at best, a Wordpress blog for example). Because of the lack of references and the way it is written it looks more like an individual trying to push his/her unique point of view on the various events in 2009 rather than writing a good, balanced Wikipedia article. FFMG (talk) 11:50, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete per deleters, without prejudice to recreation in say 3 years, if there actually turn out to be any. Johnbod (talk) 16:40, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete - "Wars and rumors of wars". There is no evidence that the events of the first third of 2009 will have a deeper or more lasting effect than the events of any other year. More to the point, there is not a significant mass of reliable sources using the term "Revolution of 2009", directly or indirectly. --Art Carlson (talk) 08:16, 11 May 2009 (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.