Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Generic Cosmology

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.  (aeropagitica)  21:37, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Generic Cosmology

Obvious original research, the only Google hits are when people happen to use the words generic and cosmology in sequence. Joke 01:24, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nomination. –Joke 01:24, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Might be notable as a world record attempt to use the word "cosmology" as many times as possible in one article. Deizio 01:38, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Bullshit, not even worthy for Uncyclopedia. Makes Time Cube sound 100% accurate. KirbyMeister 01:49, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, bs article. Move all this crap to your own blog, we are an encyclopedia you know. --Terence Ong 02:41, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete as blatant original research. Aplomado - UTC 05:30, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. original nonsense. (Or is that patent research?) Bucketsofg 05:44, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as OR.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 07:34, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete OR Funky Monkey 17:04, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Get a free website for this kinda thing, or a life. ProhibitOnions 19:49, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, plus it made my head spin. TKE 20:50, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Fails Wikipedia:Notability. —Eternal Equinox | talk 21:45, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. agree. -- Samir (the scope) 00:24, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as hoax. It's a cosmology, only it's more generic than other cosmologies... Peter Grey 05:52, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Cosmology based on observations only as opposed to cosmoogy with a point of view. What would it say? This is no encyclopedia, it is a compilation of perspectives by powers to be

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.