Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christ-Pythagoras's Explanatory Philosophy


 * 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.  MBisanz  talk 13:59, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Christ-Pythagoras's Explanatory Philosophy
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Article has been prodded, but it was contested. The subject is said to be quite unknown and difficult to find in sources. It also seems that very few books about it exist, and most of them are in Greek or Indian. Only two links were provided: One leads to a "Cannot be found"-like page, the other is in Portuguese, my primary language. It only briefly mentions the subject. providing no information. A Google search didn't prove useful either. In a nutshell, considering WP:N, WP:OR and WP:V, the page should be deleted. Victor Lopes (talk) 21:58, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I forgot to say that the Russian version of the article has been deleted, and the portuguese one is unreferenced. Victor Lopes (talk) 22:02, 27 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete As a rule, things that are unknown and difficult to find sources for would be what we call "not notable", in a very textbook way. P HARMBOY  ( TALK ) 22:00, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete No reliable sources, no hope of being sources. Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 22:46, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete The article itself contains no substantial motivation for why it would be notable. Also, a quick search of JSTOR revealed only one journal article which uses the names Christ and Pythagoras in succession, and it is not at all in reference to this. Huadpe (talk) 23:02, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Utterly no evidence of notability, and would probably be eligible for speedy if they had actually become a group of sorts rather than just a doctrine. &mdash;/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 23:26, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete The expansion potential beyond what is already written is almost impossible due to lack of sources, and even if what is there is true, there are no reliable or verifiable means in which to assess it.-- «JavierMC»  |  Talk  00:53, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete, unless expanded with reliable sources before this discussion is closed, for reasons detailed in the opinions already expressed. Fg2 (talk) 02:20, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Appears to be a non-notable fringe vies if not an outright hoax. Edward321 (talk) 15:26, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete: Fails WP:RS.  Otolemur crassicaudatus  (talk) 09:09, 30 September 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.