Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Prerenaturalism

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. Redwolf24 00:16, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Prerenaturalism

Obvious hoax. The word "prerenaturalism", and "prerenatural" (and all variants thereof) appear to be freshly coined gibberish with no presence whatsoever on Google. The text is convoluted and barely comprehensible, with no means for establishing context or notability. Binadot 03:24, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

• I dunno - I get it. A fresh anti-green rant, but a rant nonetheless, and so delete. Denni☯ 03:40, 2005 July 28 (UTC)
  • More importantly, it's the product of original research and personal opinion. Wikipedia is not a soapbox, nor is it a repository for mini-essays. Even if this phenomenon were notable and well-documented (and it isn't), it would have to be entirely rewritten for POV and clarity. Binadot 03:50, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment: to call this the product of original research is an insult to original research. -- Hoary 05:18, July 28, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as nonsense, hoax, rant, non notable. DavidH 03:44, July 28, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I think the author must have meant preternaturalism, but sadly that makes little more sense than the actual title. Wall 'o text rant. Fernando Rizo T/C 04:05, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete this blather about a nonexistent subject. -- Hoary 05:18, July 28, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete this pretentious and obvious hoax. --FreelanceWizard 05:55, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Very poor article on incorrectly named topic. Capitalistroadster 07:13, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, total bolox jamesgibbon 10:06, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. The what now? the wub "?/!" 13:21, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete for satisfying pretty much every VfD criterion. -EDM 18:57, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
• Don't Delete This is no hoax....It was discovered and first defined durring a long discussion on ethics and morality. Prerenaturalism may not be widely recognized, but it exists. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.177.12.82 (talk • contribs) 10:14, 2 August 2005. (This is the IP address of the author, whose only edits are to this VfD, the page in question, and to add a possibly highly POV link to Marxism.)
• Don't Delete To address the above concerns: Prerenaturalism is radically new, so yes, it does not exist on Google. My poor soul, there is a world outside your precious internet! It is not anti-green: you missed the point entirely! I will not address the preternatural comment. And if it does turn out to be a hoax, thank God. The article takes great care to discuss whether or not prerenaturalism exists, so I don't know why you so vehemently call it a hoax. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.177.12.82 (talk • contribs) 01:20, 1 August 2005.

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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.