Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Antigonism

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 delete. Johnleemk | Talk 12:25, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Antigonism[edit]

Personal essay, not encyclopedic under WP:Not --Hansnesse 02:50, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as according to WP:NOT, "Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought." Sycthos ^Talk 03:01, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The writing style, formatting of the actual wikitext, inclusion of numbered footnote references starting at 35, and lack of the actual footnotes strongly indicate that this is a copyright violation. I have not yet been able to locate the original, though. Uncle G 03:26, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A bad personal essay at that (Notorious4life 05:44, 15 January 2006 (UTC))[reply]
Strong delete, original thought, possible copyvio. Will 00:50, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, WP:NOT a soapbox. Daniel Case 04:55, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete --NaconKantari 04:56, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If it's definitely not a copyvio, then transwiki to Wikisource. Delete from here regardless. Stifle 00:02, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom. Incognito 03:40, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
this is a well written article — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kabab (talk • contribs)
- Comment Kabab created the Antigonism article (see article history). --Hansnesse 07:32, 17 January 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.