Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Philosophy of Life (2nd nomination)


 * 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. Mailer Diablo 07:47, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Philosophy of Life
This article was nominated by Endomion, but was listed incorrectly. Listing now. No vote.  light darkness  16:41, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete: Unencyclopedic personal research. - squibix  (talk)  17:34, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Blatant OR. Lukas (T. 23:21, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete philosophical musings. OR. KillerChihuahua?!? 00:47, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I get the impression that Wikipedia allows voting without any requirement of explanation. However, I do not find "philosophical musing" as a criteria for deletion. Did you mean OR? --JimmyT 04:33, 5 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Don't Delete. The subject "philosophy of life" lends itself well to the original intention of Biology (the study of life) which has become a study of living things.  More hard science has been done which has allowed more knowledge to be accumulated about things common to all life.  "Philosophy of Life" literally means, "knowledge about life" and this is the obvious place to put that knowledge which is common to all life.  This would include how Diatoms changed early Earth's atmosphere, examples of how life is found almost everywhere liquid water exists, how life survives through hostile environments, how life forms more complex life forms, what effects life has on the physical universe, etc.Terryeo 01:00, 5 February 2006 (UTC)  is the article's author.
 * *Delete. By its very nature, this article could never be anything but OR, but this particular version reads like it was written by a middle schooler. wikipediatrix 01:33, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I have to disagree with your opinion. What do you mean by "its very nature"?  This article could be an encyclopedic article if it presented views of the many different Philosophies of Life as contained in numerous religions and philosophies. --JimmyT 04:26, 5 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete as OR --DV8 2XL 01:38, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as written it is not encyclopedic. --JimmyT 02:02, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
 * If re-written from an encyclopedic point of view, it possible could be kept. --JimmyT 02:24, 5 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete, original research. -- Antaeus Feldspar 02:19, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NOR. --Kinu 03:02, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete this article is an article on nothing. Following this logic let's have articles on differing philosphies on how to make an ideal apple pie, and philosphies on how best to hold a baseball bat etc. etc. No encyclopedic merit IMHO. Glen Stollery 22:40, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. This is a POV essay, not an encyclopedia article. --Modemac 02:52, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NOR - pseudoscientific babbling plainly isn't encyclopedic. -- ChrisO 00:38, 7 February 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.