Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Religion of 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 of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:04, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Religion of Love

Delete, Original research Mr Adequate 01:48, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Clearly original research --¿ WhyBeNormal ? 01:54, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete wow... never seen anything like this. Clear or. Mikker ^... 02:05, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as OR. Blnguyen 02:52, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Love is dead. Also, original research. Adrian Lamo ·· 03:00, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete huge essay uploaded in five minutes. Obvious original research. Not encyclopedic. Encyclopedia articles can't use terms such as "I hope...", "I feel...", "I believe..." etc. We have a pefectly good article on Love. Poster should leave this for his own personal web page, not WP. Camillus (talk) 03:03, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Fargo3455 03:37, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Delete although I don't agree with the article's content, it does cite references.,,,,,Ariele 04:09, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as original research. The author should set up his own web page. Capitalistroadster 05:01, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete although there are sources, there's a big difference between using sources to back up a widely held opinion, or to get basic facts, and using resources as a springboard for creating a whole philosophy, which is what this seems to be doing. Makemi 06:43, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
• Lo, brothers and sisters, let us read from the Book of Deleteus Strongus, Chapter 1, Verse 5, in which it says, verily thus: And there be not a Wikipedian on this Blessed Earth who shall stand for the nonsense, for lo, it is a massive waste of space and bandwidth. And thus it is so.--み使い Mitsukai 15:49, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Pavel Vozenilek 00:13, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Makemi. --Allen 00:19, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete WP:NOR and per Mitsukai (The blessed prophet Wales has forseen the proliferation of such rediculosity as doth the fungi grow on the rotting corpses, and has enlightened us with the knowledge of the self-actualization of the powers of the delete; may it be speedily in our days, Ramen.) Avi 00:29, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - even if it weren't OR, it looks to be far from the standard of quality we're trying to maintain here. --Calamari 01:41, 14 February 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.