Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Philosophy of Life


 * 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 on a Votes for Undeletion nomination).  No further edits should be made to this page.  

The result of the debate was Delete -- ( &#x263A; drini &#x266B; | &#x260E; ) 02:21, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Philosophy of Life
Completely POV and non-encyclopedic. Mrcurly 08:37, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete ramblings CLW 08:51, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Being badly written is not grounds for deletion. Banno 07:50, 27 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete & redirect to Michel Henry Anetode 09:44, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
 * That would be POV. Banno 07:50, 27 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Keep - this is an outstanding example of bad philosophy and could easily become the Wiki's own Timecube Banno 12:00, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep as per above. Piecraft 15:16, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia doesn't need its own timecube. What Wikipedia needs are articles that are verifiable and not original research. This article fails those tests, so delete -Satori (talk) 15:28, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
 * It could only count as POV or OR if it made sense, or indeed meant something. You give it far too much credit. Banno 07:50, 27 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete. This is an essay, not an article.  A redirect of this title to Michel Henry would be surprising, and a bad thing.  Content could be merged there if useful, though.  Friday (talk) 16:41, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Again, it could only be an essay if it was coherent. It isn't, so it ain't. Banno 07:50, 27 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Merge into Michel Henry. Owen&times; &#9742;  18:01, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete as per Satori. -- Kjkolb 20:34, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete as per nom. Groeck 22:28, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete as per Satori. -Nameneko 01:09, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. This article is only a stub that needs to be expanded. It is clearly easier to destroy than to create something of constructive. I have added some titles to clarify the content and a rough outline of the philosophical history of the concept of life. The personal points of view should probably be removed ? Philippe Audinos 21:32, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Then we would have an article very similar to Meaning of life. Upon reflection, perhaps move the relevant content to Meaning of Life, and the salvageable Henry bit to Michel Henry. Then redirect to Meaning of life - Mr Curly 17:35, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I agree with the redirection idea. The philosophy section in Meaning of Life should cover it. Still 22:52, 4 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete not useful.--Guitarist6987876 04:05, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete Strong agree with Banno per above. Mashford 22:28, 4 October 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.