Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Human Union
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_
— User:Tevildo, 18:54, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
Stance: comment
Cited policy: WP:SOAP||WP:OR||WP:BIO||WP:PROF (Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not)