Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Universal 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 of the debate was delete. bainer (talk) 10:53, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Universal empire[edit]

Delete. This page is utter rubbish. The only source he cites is a legitimate history text, but he has misrepresented the chapter title. It is in fact "The Impossible Dream of Universal Empire, A.D. 532 to 602." There are also numerous factoids that put the accuracy of the whole article into question. The Holy Roman Empire, of course, never came anywhere near ruling the vast territories that the Roman Empire ruled. Also, "Catholic" does not mean "orthodox, as he claims, but "universal" (I've just verified this at One Look). His claim that the Russian tsar "arguably" inherited the right to the Roman throne is at best questionable, as is his claim that Napoleon set out to conquer Rome's old territory (I'm pretty sure Napoleaon took much of Germany and Poland, and tried to conquer Russia, which with the exception of the odd outpost in Germany were never Roman). I cannot believe that there is any legitimate history behind this article given the obvious errors and the misleading source reference. Kelisi 04:52, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as Original Research. Monkeyman^(talk) 06:09, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Pretty clever. However, the cited reference, at Amazon here, only covers the period to 565 A.D. Should be speedied as nonsense. Slowmover 06:14, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:OR and the well explained nomination. Eivind 07:21, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, no support in the sole ref, very original research. Angus McLellan 20:19, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nonsense, possibly concealing an axe to grind. ProhibitOnions 21:31, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom --Khoikhoi 03:52, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep! The page CLEARLY states this concept is a THEORY. There are many THEORIES which have articles on Wikipedia (string theory, Marxist theory, etc.). Nowhere does this article purport the theory as fact.

The article does explain how the theory is BASED ON CERTAIN FACTS. Those facts can be readily checked on Wikipedia.

For example, the bit about Russian Czars trying to claim a tie to the Roman Empire is well established. The following is pasted from the Wikipedia entry on "Czar:"

The last Russian ruler formally styled Tsar, Peter the Great, at the peace of Nystad (November 1721), assumed the Byzantine styles of imperator (of Latin origin, somewhat exotic for the Eastern Orthodox world) and Autocrat, intended to mark his imperial dignity as the equal of the Roman Catholic Habsburg Emperor, as the 'third Rome' (after Byzantium; the Holy Roman Empire succeeding the original Rome in the Western Roman Empire).

Perhaps the above users have axes to grind? Just because they either (1) do not agree with this theory or (2) have not themselves heard of it, does NOT mean the theory ITSELF doesn't exist. And that is all the article reports on: the existence of a theory.

At any rate, I edited the page to take away some of the ramblings and inaccuracies, which I agree were humorous. I for one have heard of this general CONCEPT; perhaps the users above disagre with it bearing this name? Is there another name for this theory?

I believe we're hearing from the author, "HistoryProf" – his writing and arguing styles leave little doubt. Prof, cite your sources. Kelisi 22:29, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as OR. Wikipedia is not the place for theories. Not even for THEORIES. Fan1967 23:05, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as original research. Until the Napoleonic Wars (not the Russian Revolution), the concept of Roman authority had powerful, almost mystical, impact on Europeans, but the article isn't saying anything very coherent and the expression "universal empire" seems completely unrelated. Peter Grey 08:31, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, regrettable original research. Sandstein 10:26, 14 March 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.