Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Revolutionary empire

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. WP:SNOW. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:26, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Revolutionary empire[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Bringing here for more eyes for a discussion. I've already done WP:BEFORE, this seems to be WP:OR. A google scholar search for the term only yields results related to a single book (Revolutionary empire: the rise of the English-speaking empires from the fifteenth century to the 1780s) which doesn't use the term as this article suggests, it's simple saying the English-speaking empires were "revolutionary" in that they were different from previous empires, it's using "revolutionary" as an adjective, not "revolutionary empire" as a term denoting a sub-type of empire. The only other source to even use the term is a book by a professor of religious studies, not an expert in poli sci (WP:FRINGE), (WP:UNDUE). Most, if not all, the "what links here" pages are previous versions of articles in which the creator of this article tried to insert a link and was promptly reverted as OR or Fringe. William Thweatt ^Talk^Contribs 00:21, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Doesn't seem to be an accepted type of government; it's just simply "revolutionary" as an adjective describing "empire". I've removed it from Template:Government type too. Ansh6 6 6 01:32, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:37, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:35, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Seems to be a made up term not supported by the references. Caffeyw (talk) 03:47, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 20:40, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I'm cleaning up copyvio from this article's creator and another editor who may be the same person. Also raised issues about using categories from a strategy game at WP:ANI#Editor(s) adding categories from strategy games to articles. Dougweller (talk) 14:51, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Make that several socks, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Turgeis. Dougweller (talk) 19:41, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I should have checked earlier. It was mostly copyvio. It is now one sentence and a quotation. Dougweller (talk) 19:56, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, I've played that game a lot. How did I not notice this?! Thanks for shedding some light on that. Ansh6 6 6 20:19, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. This user is creating articles around terms that are merely idioms for well established concepts that already exist on Wikipedia. Maybe it's possible to write a historigraphic article on the term itself but it would be a highly specialized and difficult topic. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 16:13, 2 September 2013 (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.