Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Meaning of life (in five pages)


 * 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 per WP:SNOW. UltraExactZZ Claims~ Evidence 15:49, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Meaning of life (in five pages)

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

I was tempted to zap this invoking WP:SNOW but I will do the proper thing. Unencyclopedic. Original research. Etc. &mdash; RHaworth 07:18, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete User meant well, but misinterpreted what Wikipedia is for. Delete per WP:NOT. Have left him a helpful message. BlazerKnight (talk) 07:51, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Additionally, if the article is by Bill Williams then SCHolar44 probably doesn't own the copyright to it. It's possible that he gave SCHolar44 the copyright on the article or released it under a free license, but since the latter says "It was intended for publication but he died before it was published" that seems unlikely. Either way, we'd need some proof of its copyright status before we could use it. Olaf Davis (talk) 09:14, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - the article's creator agrees that it's original research. Also the copyright issue - the presumption has to be that the copyright is owned by the author's estate so it can't be published without permission (not that WP should publish it anyway). Politeness or not, WP:SNOW clearly applies - I only prodded it in the first place because there's no suitable speedy criterion available to mere mortals like me (I missed the probable copyvio). andy (talk) 09:58, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete'. WP:OR-mania. Bravedog (talk) 11:07, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - WP:OR, WP:NOT and WP:COPYVIO all seem to apply here. Jarkeld (talk) 13:41, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete: Essay. Joe Chill (talk) 14:53, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Snow it, Delete. Per above.  TheWeak Willed   (T * G) 20:28, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - per WP:OR even if WP:COPYVIO doesn't apply. ChemGardener (talk) 00:09, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete but I would encouage Scholar44 to move it to Wikisource. Racepacket (talk) 18:48, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Snow Delete: Perhaps this essay deserves publication, but that's doesn't happen here.  This is an original essay meant to be attributed to an author.--Milowent (talk) 21:36, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Snow Delete - Pretty good essay, but not for Wikipedia. WP:NOT. And it's Original research. And the big copyright mess too, Lord Spongefrog,  (I am the Czar of all Russias!)  14:33, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Essay and apparent memorial page.—Ash (talk) 09:01, 11 November 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.