Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oktober conflict
Zero google hits for this strangely vague POV and original research type future prediction. Dbiv 03:56, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. If this isn't original research, it certainly looks like it. Maybe we need Wikidamus, where budding prophets can upload their predictions and the rest of us can watch and laugh at them when they don't come true. --Kelly Martin 08:20, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. speculative fiction. Cleduc 09:45, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Del Original research. Or is there a wiki to transwiki this?--Wikimol 10:05, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Keep.
In its defense, the spelling "October conflict" gets about 300 hits, though not all deal with this matter. At any rate, the Google test is hokey anyway. Possiblyrename the article, or merge into an article such as Projected Sociological Evolution of the United States or Scenarios for the Overthrow of the Corporate Elite. EventHorizon talk 18:35, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)- In fact, I can't find any evidence that there's anything notable or special about the specific name "Oktober conflict", although I've heard/seen it used a couple of times. Definitely keep this information, but in a different article. EventHorizon talk 18:53, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Comment: User:EventHorizon created the page.Dbiv 19:10, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Yep. Sorry, I should have made that more clear. EventHorizon talk 22:35, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Comment: User:EventHorizon created the page.Dbiv 19:10, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- In fact, I can't find any evidence that there's anything notable or special about the specific name "Oktober conflict", although I've heard/seen it used a couple of times. Definitely keep this information, but in a different article. EventHorizon talk 18:53, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Comment: I question whether theoretical, hypothetical musings on possible 'sociological evolutions' belong in a general encyclopedia under any circumstance. They should only be included if they describe a "notable" theory, which requires that the theory be forwarded by a prominent person or captivate a substantial portion of the public. Does this theory meet that test? --Kelly Martin 22:48, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, original research. Megan1967 02:44, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Unless this can be definitively sourced as an active discussion outside of Wikipedia, delete as original research. Speculation about future events should pass a high hurdle before being included as an encyclopedia article. Rossami (talk) 01:49, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Delete as original research, though very intersting. hfool/Roast me 23:43, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)