Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Godic religion


 * 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 early per WP:SNOW. WjBscribe 18:37, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Godic religion

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

The article has no references. The phrase "Godic religion" has 2 hits on Google, one of which is this Wikipedia entry, the other of which is not a genuine hit, since it has the word "godic" at the end of one sentence and the word "religion" as the start of the next (and it's a transcript of a religious ceremony). Google Books has no hits. A Google search to try to identify "S. Gonzalez" who allegedly coined this phrase, was unsuccessful. This article provides zero evidence that the phrase "Godic religion" is actually used anywhere. Grover cleveland 01:20, 25 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete per above - I knew there was something fishy about this! ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 01:23, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete - "A Godic religion is a religion based on God"? Who writes this stuff? -  Irides centi   (talk to me!)  02:24, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. No Google News hits, no Google News Archive hits, no Google Groups hits; the subject is unsourced and the use of the term is unverifiable. --Metropolitan90 02:46, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Abrahamic religion; the term is used very sporadically, mostly in blogs but also thus and redirects are cheap.  Eliminator JR  Talk  02:54, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The link is to a mirror of Wikipedia. Google Blog search has no hits either. Grover cleveland 04:10, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, fair enough. Delete.  Eliminator JR  Talk  12:58, 25 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete, no redirect. This is OR and something someone made up.  meshach 03:05, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - no redirect. it's nonsense. patsw 03:06, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - no real mention in Google Books or Google Scholar, either. Smmurphy(Talk) 03:10, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as nonsense. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 03:14, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete per nom. Definitely OR. --  soum  (0_o) 10:51, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Nick Catalano contrib talk 15:51, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as this subject is entirely unsuitable for an encyclopedia at this time. Mr. Berry 16:11, 25 March 2007 (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.