Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Melchizedek Principle

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 articles. Mailer Diablo 16:36, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Melchizedek Principle

Original, unverifiable research, borders on ad for own site Lundse 13:05, 18 April 2006 (UTC) I am also nominating the following related pages because one is merely a redirect for the main page and the rest also further what seems to be one mans theories:

• The Melchizedek Principle
• The_Revelatorium
• Soul Atoms
• Maldek
• The Order of Melchizedek

Please visit the Revelatorium Melchizedek Teachings a get an idea of what this is about. If nothing else, all this is original research, IMHO. Lundse 13:23, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

• Merge per thatcher. Kukini 13:13, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • I may have been a bit (too) bold in including this, as the user voted when only the main article was on this page (see history).

Not sure as to what the above author is referring. If to my vote, it was based on the content at the time of the vote. Kukini 13:33, 18 April 2006 (UTC), Wikipedian.

• • The content at the time was the The Melchizedek Principle article. I was hoping you would update your vote to include the current content, and maybe delete this (then irrelevant) exchange. Lundse 14:14, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
• I have no idea what Melchizedek Principle is really even about -- it's almost bordering on gibberish. Delete AnonMoos 13:27, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

• It could be worse. You could have actually followed the link to the website, which is ten times worse. My eyes are bleeding, I think. Delete per nom as NN, OR gibberish. RGTraynor 14:22, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Whatever isn't original research seems to be covered already at Melchizedek Priesthood (Christianity). Thatcher131 14:45, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all these per WP:NOR, WP:NOT. I don't see a reason to believe these subtopics are important enough to keep even redirects, let alone articles. See the discussion under some of the Thelema-related Crowleycruft on AfD the last couple of days; then consider that the website (and any books etc) being promoted have been read by millions of people fewer than Crowley's books. Barno 18:40, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as OR. Wstaffor 02:01, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete It doesn't even qualify IMHO as original research. It's just pseudo-religious nonsense that really has little place on Wikipedia. I say tell him "thank you for playing, have a copy of our home version" and send him on his way. Pat Payne 22:14, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Jim Ellis 18:01, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete OR and ultimately self-promotion. And besides, "super high frequency motivation" can cause brain cancer if held too close. Shenme 03:17, 23 April 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.