Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Importance of byzantine icons in worship


 * 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. WP:SNOW  MBisanz  talk 00:06, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Importance of byzantine icons in worship

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

This article is original research and an essay, the links within it (which do not appear to be reliable sources to establish notability are broken. Article was proposed for deletion but the original editor removed it without explanation. kelapstick (talk) 16:38, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * comment note that the second URL in the page is a blog, I fixed the URL in the page and it is still a broken link.--kelapstick (talk) 16:40, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Wikipedia is not for posting personal essays and/or homework. Doc StrangeMailbox Logbook 16:47, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions.   --  fr33k  man   -s-  16:53, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions.   --  fr33k  man   -s-  16:54, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete as OR. Stifle (talk) 17:03, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Obvious personal essay Frozenevolution (talk) 18:33, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:OR. The subject of the article could be notable enough for inclusion in an article about the Byzantine empire, if the contents were reliably sourced, but I don't think it would merit a proper article, even with sources. So I suggest deleting the article, but encouraging the author to provide sources and add some of the contents to an existing article. - Lilac Soul (talk • contribs • count) 17:39, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment I agree, I have notified the original editor, and reminded him about verifiability and reliable sources.--kelapstick (talk) 18:00, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete and redirect to Icon. This looks like an essay. AlexTiefling (talk) 17:47, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete without redirect. This is WP:OR, and is a very specific title that would be of little use as a redirect. Quantumobserver (talk) 17:52, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Agree that this is WP:OR. --Quartermaster (talk) 18:37, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per Doc Strange. Definitely looks like homework. Peridon (talk) 19:06, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete -- per WP:OR.-- TRU  CO   19:54, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:OR, and ill-researched at that. Constantine   ✍  10:24, 19 February 2009 (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.