Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Immaterial world

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 all. Angr/talk 15:51, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Immaterial world

Mr. Joseph Prymak (see also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joseph Prymak) has seen it fit to grace Wikipedia with his original research, which I hereby all nominate for deletion in one fell swoop: Immaterial world (incl. Non-material world), Universal questions (incl. Eternal questions) and Anthropogeology. -- Sandstein 12:53, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete all, as per nomination. Lukas ^(T.|@) 13:02, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete interesting subjects but clearly original research. Just zis Guy you know? 17:23, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• Not Delete incorporeal and immaterial because it needs to simply be edited and connected to other philosophy subjects. I do apologize for some sloppy work, but the basic ideas are there, and I will continue to edit and improve the article about the incorporeal as many past philosophers claimed to have knowledge of. Any classical professor of philosophy would agree that this is a major concern and topic for many ancient and medieval philosophers. This is not original work. I am merely trying to summarize what has been written about for thousands of years. There is no other page on Wikipedia that covers this topic. Please help me to improve it, and not delete it. Thanks. --joseph 02:54, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Reluctant Delete (Or Perhaps a FIX) I hate to say it, but it seems that this is original research. I do, however, believe that there is some salvagable information, if anyone would like to take the time to fix it. I just have no idea if the ammount of savable information is enough to warrant an entire page. Billvoltage 02:59, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Not Delete the updated and edited version of immaterial and incorporeal concepts. Ideally Anthropogeology can also be edited, but I can do that at another time, so delete it if you wish. The three articles in question are very seperate and distinct topics and should not have not been lumped together. Therefore I see it fit to vote on each seperately. Thank you for your very considerate help and comments. I do appreciate the good editing that you all do. --joseph 04:43, 7 March 2006 (UTC) I do hope you will reconsider this important and not original topic that does not come up in any search on the Wikipedia. It is not right to keep out such an ancient and common idea among many famous philosophers for thousands of years.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Josephprymak (talk • contribs)
• Not Delete the updated and edited version of universal questions, or perrenial questions because it is another common idea for many famous philosophers, and it would be wrong for the Wikipedians to completely dismiss this ancient concept that was debated for thousands of years.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Josephprymak (talk • contribs)

• Comment: It is very important to note that the above votes for deletion are not specific about what should be deleted and there are no good reasons for why exactly. Three distinct topics were lumped together. This is an improper procedure for deleting the hard work of other wikipedians and academics. My wife is also an editor, along with friends at many universities, and they would defend me, and a few have helped to edit some of this work. There really are no clear explanations for why each distinct topic should be deleted. Please do not take this personally. I am only trying to defend the writings of many famous philosophers whose books have been passed along by many humans who saw something very worthy in their ideas. This is a fact that cannot be denied. --joseph 05:13, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I can also list many others who defend these ideas if you need more humans to explain why. I hope that we gave some satisfactory reasons, and that these alone are sufficient instead of a majority rules situation, which is against the Wikipedian rules. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Josephprymak (talk • contribs)

• Comment: All of the nominated pages are in violation of WP:NOR, WP:V. I have already explained the specific problems with these articles in this discussion. Please note also that you should sign your comments, that you should vote only once and that removing the AfD tag (as on Eternal questions) is impermissible. Sandstein 12:36, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: Sorry for my mistake of not signing properly. I am new to all of this. Thanks for the editing and deletion of improper articles on the Wikipedia, however I have attempted to edit and improve the two main articles in question. I sincerely apologize for not having properly edited in the first place. I notice that there are other articles on here that require editing as well, and are not to be deleted. Thanks again for your time and effort. If I deleted anything it was by mistake. Thanks for your patience with me. Yours truly, new to Wikipedia, --joseph 15:59, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: Thanks for your considerate reply. However, the first articles in particular still read like a slightly confusing personal essay to me, and not like an encyclopedia article. And Anthropogeology still lacks any sources to indicate that anyone except you uses this term, so it also looks like original research. While we're on procedure, please also note that it is considered bad form to change one's previous comments; if any amendments are necessary, it is usual to strikethrough the old text like this and append any necessary corrections as a new comment. Best regards, Sandstein 16:47, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: Dear Sandstein,

Thank you for your guidance and patience with me as a new Wikipedian. I am impressed. I was once edited by a very rude Wikipedian, and you are by far superior. I agree to delete the article of Anthropogeology. Yes, you are right, the other articles need a lot of work, so delete them. I could not have been nominated for deletion by anyone more kind and reasonable. Thanks again for your patience and treating me with respect. I hope to improve my ability to properly contribute to the Wikipedia. I learnt some good lessons. Yours sincerely, --joseph 05:09, 10 March 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.