Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Divine Name

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. W.marsh 01:44, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Divine Name

This doesn't read very well and doesn't make much sense. It points to some religious website, but does not make any claims of any kind. The author, Shirin777 (talk • contribs) seems to have scrawled this link into a number of pages. — Gareth Hughes 21:07, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom and Redirect to Tetragrammaton or God or other suitable existing article. Tevildo 21:11, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Delete and redirect not compatible, I now realise. :) Tevildo 21:13, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment: a delete and redirect position is uncommon, but not incompatible. If there is something very objectionable in the history and it would make a good redirect, deleting the article and recreating it as a redirect would make sense. -- Kjkolb 02:21, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete religioncruft. Blue pill this crap. Danny Lilithborne 21:16, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. Ha ha ha!! Blue pill---that's great!! ---Charles 03:07, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. --Coredesat 21:18, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment A fairly plausible search term, so a redirect seems better to me. But I won't labour the point. The article as it stands should certainly go. Tevildo 21:24, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Wikipedia is not for proselytizing. Fan1967 21:31, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
• Don't redirect. The concept of "divine name" is not exclusive to the Abrahamic religions. In fact, the article is about the "World Teacher", who also builds on Buddhist and other traditions. --Lambiam^Talk 21:41, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and don't redirect doesn't even make sence. Wikibout-Talk to me! 23:20, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:HUH?. If redirect, to Names of God maybe? ~ trialsanderrors 00:00, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
• Just delete useless Jammo (SM247) 00:39, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete with no redirect. -- Kjkolb 02:21, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete---do not redirect, 'cause there is no article to which this can be redirected. I almost tagged this as a copyvio, since the whole article is taken from the website at the bottom of the page. However, there is a rewording (to the point of bordering on nonsense) so it is not straight up copying. It certainly is useless in any case. ---Charles 03:05, 25 June 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.