Deletion of The Human Union

Comment: A couple of points.  First, my apologies if you were offended by the flippant nature of my earlier comment, but such obvious errors in spelling and punctuation do _not_ inspire confidence in your readers, and can easily be corrected by a few minutes' extra diligence.  As a show of good faith, I've removed a couple of minor errors from the text myself.  Secondly, the issue here is _notability_, as described in , and _verifiability_, as described in .  The article, as it stands, does not present any verifiable evidence of the movement's existence, let alone its notability; the link to its own website, not being independent of the movement, doesn't count towards this.  If such evidence exists, you'll need to include it in the article - proof that the term has been used by academic or popular authors other than the movement's founder, proof of media coverage of the movement, or something of the sort
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N||WP:V)

Comment: I am (I presume we all are) still waiting for those reliable |verifiable sources to be cited on this one. No sign of them as yet. Without them, this is surely a / delete, no matter how eloquent or welcome the interlocutory badinage
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:V||WP:NOR||WP:V)

Comment: Thank you for your reply - it does make your position more clear.  Two further pages I'd refer you to are  and .  Wikipedia is neither a place to publish original research in any field, academic or otherwise, nor a platform to advance a particular political or social agenda.  Dr Storey may be notable as a person ( and  refer), in which case this exposition of his views would be suitable for an article about him: his book may be notable, in which case it would be appropriate in a summary of the book in an article about it.  However, as it stands, the article provides no _verifiable_ (and I emphasise that again) sources that show the "argument", if that's how you'd prefer to characterize it, is _notable_ outside Dr Storey's personal beliefs and writings, and, as the article's author, it's your duty to provide such sources if the article is to remain..  If the political views encapsulated in the article ever do achieve widespread notice, then it'll be acceptable - but Wikipedia is not the right vehicle for your attempts to assist it in doing so.  Dialectical materialism is a good example; if we were writing in 1896, before that term came to the prominence it has now, it would be an equally-strong candidate for deletion.  In 110 years' time, "The Human Union" might be regarded as the most important movement of this century; but, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we can't say that it has any claim for notability _now_
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:SOAP||WP:OR||WP:BIO||WP:PROF)