Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Names of God (antagonist, deductive definitions)


 * 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 of the debate was DELETE. -Splash talk 23:51, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Names of God (antagonist, deductive definitions)
Rather confused, unencyclopedic OR. Not much there to be salvaged by merging, as far as I can see. Delete. Lukas 07:42, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete essay. Gazpacho 07:55, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete this confused essay. &mdash;Quarl (talk) 2006-01-20 10:18Z 
 * Delete. Original research, and poorly done at that. --StuffOfInterest 14:17, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Original research, no references, sources or citations apparent. How is a researcher supposed to find this information useful?   (aeropagitica)   21:06, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete WP:OR --BadSeed 01:03, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Do not delete; I added a more informative section, (And cant anyone offer an Alternative Title ? (for article) sat 21 January.MMcAnnisYumaAZMmcannis 23:01, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Post-note addition: And...How can you complain when YOU are not supposed to Know, or Speak the name of 'g o d'  as proscribed by some cultures?..(and today's comments are written post the addition of the A -  Z section)Mmcannis 14:44, 22 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I just told someone I would try to use 'humor' (on this revisit). Besides the Law of superposition and the Law of faunal succession which were required to get smart brainiacs to deal better, to cope better with evolution and Anti-/Evolution, there should be some laws for nascent and newly created articles (that are nascent, and or 'young' articles). Like: Law of ,Reading' a ,Delete' article, or Law of visiting 3-times a delete article.  Since no one else (at this time) would dare write my approach to this "Name of" article, (or even offer an alternate re-titleing(....theoretically You've read the article and could re-title it?.... ), I can make conclusions about the Voters themselves, (whether (as with a 'god"), whether a He, She, or It)(I'll look and see what the above 5 voters cat is....hmmmmmm..hhhmmm...hmmmm  5 He-category.     5 guys.   (As if I didn't already know.)  End of humor.  I knew it would be only 5 guys.)Sorry now my feelings are hurt.  Maybe that's why this was my first vote in Wikipedia. It is too bad none of you 'persons of unknown, knowns,' couldn't/ or wouldn't offer an alternate title for the article-- (In the same vein of The 'god' who must be obeyed (see the Rumpole of the Bailey entry under S)..,,(And if even one She makes a vote, I will be truly surprised-Sorry again for a Pre-opinion, that old POV again)(I would love to say "I apologize" to an incorrect categorization)...Michael(with good intentions, believe me.)Mmcannis 14:44, 22 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Neutral - I frankly don't understand the article, nor what it is trying to accomplish. I find the evolution link under "See Also" hilarious, though.  Cyde Weys  05:27, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
 * An article supposedly about all the historically significant names of the monotheistic God, that doesn't even mention YHWH or any of the other Judeo-Christian names for God, and instead lists useless synonyms for "god" like "My Lord", "Our Lord", etc. next to Ra ? Not much worth trying to understand...  &mdash;Quarl (talk) 2006-01-24 13:01Z 
 * Delete as nonsense and OR. Is this not maybe patent nonsense? Zunaid 07:40, 24 January 2006 (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.