Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pacificm and the New Testament

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 was delete. --Coredesat 00:38, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pacificm and the New Testament

Incorrectly spelled title, completely POV, New Testament discussed in other articles. Risker 06:32, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy delete as incoherent nonsense. ~ trialsanderrors 06:38, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete POV, unsourced, incoherent... pick one, and you're still a winner! EVula 06:40, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Article is unnecessary and totally OR and POV. --JaimeLesMaths 06:42, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
• definitely OR. I think it's trying to push a POV, but it's too incoherent for me to be sure which one. Oh, Delete. :) Xtifr _tälk 08:19, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Delete Agree with all the above, but wouldn't dignify it with the word 'research'. original or otherwise. Emeraude 11:57, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete unreferenced political statement Arnoutf 13:46, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Wikipedia is not a soapbox + other reasons above.--Húsönd 21:59, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete It's a letter to the editor.Noroton 01:03, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. M1ss1ontomars2k4 ^{(T | C | @)} 01:13, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: Biblical Roots of Christian Pacifism appears to be a near-clone. On the off-chance this is speedied, that should be too. Xtifr _tälk 03:39, 22 October 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.