Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Age of Division

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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. Cbrown1023 23:49, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Age of Division

Age of Division (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Entirely plagerized, (see last line of article.) JudahBlaze 01:42, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment - Copyvios should not be put through AfD. --Wooty Woot? contribs 02:26, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Having a single source cited, doesn't make it plagiarism, just poorly referenced. I see no evidence of a copyright violation.--Sandy Scott 02:27, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
No, look at the nomination. "Entirely plagerized". If the article is completely plagiarized, that is a copyvio. If the nominator has another reason for deletion, that's fine. Whether it is a copyvio or not is not to be decided through AfD.--Wooty Woot? contribs 02:28, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
  • You have a mistaken view of plagiarism. Citing an article does not make one immune to copyright violations or plagiarism. ColourBurst 03:22, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Per Wooty copy/vios should not go through AfD. Plagiarism and copy/vio are not acceptable to Wikipedia no matter how well referenced.--Dakota 06:35, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - The original reasons for the nomination aside, this is a brief and unwikified article on a subject that is already covered by several articles of better quality, including the general History of China and the articles Three Kingdoms, Jin Dynasty (265-420), Sixteen Kingdoms, and Southern and Northern Dynasties, which cover the time period this article addresses. None of those articles uses the term "Age of Divisions" to refer to that time period. - Eron Talk 16:10, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Poorly written, lacks Verifiability. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Alan.ca (talk • contribs) 10:04, 16 December 2006 (UTC).
  • Delete per above. TheRingess 20:42, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
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.