Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NATURE- Art of God, MAN-The Visitor


 * 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. v/r - TP 03:42, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

NATURE- Art of God, MAN-The Visitor

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Essay → Σ  τ  c. 05:54, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. Original research. There's nothing here to show that this particular essay or the person who wrote it are notable in the least.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 06:33, 10 December 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79
 * Delete. Absolutely no question, unverifiable, unnotable original research.  I'd nominate it for speedy, but it doesn't really fit a category very well.  If someone else thinks it should be speedy though, I'd say do it. Millermk90 (talk) 07:58, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete, blatant personal essay. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. J I P  &#124; Talk 08:28, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete, obvious copy and paste and possible copyright vio  Planetary Chaos  Talk 13:18, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I didn't find a copyvio when I did a search for it. Where did you find it possibly copied from? If it's a copyvio, I'll speedy delete it under G12. —C.Fred (talk) 13:51, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I searched as well and I couldn't find a source or I would have tagged it for G12 myself. It does have the tone and characteristics of something that was copy and pasted from a source. Also, if you look at User:Physalphysicist page, there is a ruff draft there with a sign that it was cp. "“Nature runs or came into existence by chance”. Italic textAs a matter of fact language and words are simply tools of communication." Note the "italic text". This is in several places through out the "ruff draft" indicating a cp from a source. However, 22 name listed shows as, "late" Saleem Khan Jadoon. If, this is the same person that is. It could be a coincidence in the same name? If it's not cp,original research and is soap boxing still apply.  Planetary Chaos  Talk  15:50, 10 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete: Essay. SL93 (talk) 16:14, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete "Will Time and matter exist forever?" I'm not sure, but this article won't. WP:NOTESSAY. Nwlaw63 (talk) 17:00, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. Is there no speedy criteria for this sort of thing? ---  RepublicanJacobite  TheFortyFive  05:00, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. I am with RublicanJacobite - we need a way to speedy articles that are clearly copy pasted (and not very good) OR. --Legis (talk - contribs) 08:06, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment. Maybe this can go speedy under WP:SNOW? --Legis (talk - contribs) 08:07, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment. I agree. However, there isn't a criteria for speedy deletion for issues such as this. I personally think there should be to avoid an issue that does not have a snowball's chance in hell of being accepted by a certain process, there's no need to run it through the entire process. It's just common sense.  Planetary Chaos  Talk 09:11, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree about a snowball delete. I've asked the original editor if he has an offline copy; once he's acknowledged the message, I'm prepared to delete the article, but I think it's polite to give him a chance to salvage it. —C.Fred (talk) 13:18, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I also agree about a snowball delete. This article really has no chance whatsoever of being kept. J I P  &#124; Talk 06:26, 12 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment. After reading this entry, I don't think the author fully understands what Wikipedia is and What Wikipedia is not.  Planetary Chaos  Talk 14:54, 11 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spirituality-related deletion discussions.  — Frankie (talk) 21:42, 13 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete Article violates soapbox and original research guidelines. Folgertat (talk) 22:07, 14 December 2011 (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.