Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Primeval love

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 --JForget 00:34, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Primeval love

Primeval love (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

Essaylike article, which is unreferenced. I am not quite sure which policy this article violates to not satisfy the criteria of inclusion, but I don't think this article will evolve to a meaningfull, encyclopedic article. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 14:17, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

• Delete despite the references in the article, it appears to be original research. --Snigbrook ^(talk) 14:26, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
• That's an essay, I don't think it can ever be a proper article. Delete it--Jaeger123 (talk) 14:37, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete, unless there's anything that can be merged into another article.--Berig (talk) 17:57, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

• There are many encycolpedias that exposes the philosophical subject in their pages, it is called philosophical texts, and the point of view is interesting and useful for studying and also for reading. There are links for that matter, that have been already posted in the proposed page.

The philosophical texts are a matter of study of some content; and it develops intellectual independence because it is possible to rely for your information on the opinions of other ones, as it comes from a concrete historical subject.

Sincerely, The Observer2 (talk) 18:20, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

—The Observer2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) is the creator of the article and has few or no edits outside of this subject.

• Strong delete, but lovingly. Essay-like, apparent original research. None of the external links, as far as I can tell, deal with "primeval love" in the sense it's used in the article. The existing text is essay-like and unsalvageable. —C.Fred (talk) 18:24, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. With all due respect to the ideas expressed, this is an essay, and not at all encyclopædic. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 20:57, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. It's an originally-researched essay. Sorry. Majoreditor (talk) 21:03, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete less pleasantly than others as obvious OR and damn near pseudoscience. JuJube (talk) 22:31, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete, as a personal rambly essay, and original interpretation of Freud -- original psychological research, if you will -- good for Intro to Philosophy, but not for Wikipedia. The links/refs have little to nothing to do with the content. Best for publication on a personal website, if the user wishes. As for the question of philosophical texts, we're not big on original explorations of philosophical ideas on Wikipedia, I'm afraid. -- phoebe / (talk) 06:57, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 22:56, 14 April 2008 (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.