Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Locke and Demosthenes

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. Punkmorten 22:39, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Allow me some explanation, as this page does not convey it very well. The article is an essay comparing and contrasting Locke and Demosthenes in comparison to Peter and Valentine Wiggen, two characters in the novel Ender's Game. They took the two respective names as pseudonyms to write politics. Its all nice and rosy, except its very much original research. In fact it exemplifes original research in the highest degree through a comparative essay by the page's two authors. I like the book and its sequels very much, but wikipedia is not the place for personal essays. --Kevin_b_er 02:21, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I admit that I fine the topic interesting, however the original research makes this inappropriate for wikipedia. --malo (tlk) (cntrbtns) 02:24, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• DeleteThough a very interesting read, this explifies original research and is also very unencyclopedic. Canadian-Bacon ^(contribs) 02:37, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete; not appropriate for Wikipedia, because it blatantly violates our WP:NOR rule. I strongly recommend that they write about it somewhere, but this isn't the right website for that essay. Antandrus (talk) 02:38, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per all of the above. When I first saw the page, my instinct was actually to check history for an old version to revert to... that's probably a bad sign. Most of the recent edits have been like this: [1] [2]. Luna Santin 02:52, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, much as I love Ender's Game, this is original research. NawlinWiki 02:54, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 11:33, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Felete as an essay -- Whpq 16:08, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete I'm pretty sure I marked this as speedy, but I guess it was recreated. Danny Lilithborne 02:23, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 06:52, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete.NN.-Kmaguir1 08:36, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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.