Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sarraino theory (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 was Snow Delete. — Cactus Writer (talk) 21:08, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Sarraino theory
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log )

Original research; Soapboxing. Previous AfD closed as CSD-G11, but I do not believe the current version fits G11 ZZArch talk to me 22:13, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete. I made my argument in the first AfD 3 hours ago and nothing in the current version of the article leads me to believe that any part of that argument no longer applies. &mdash; KuyaBriBri Talk 22:45, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete as soap boxing. WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 23:03, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete If it's not promotional, it's a hoax--a search on Yahoo yielded one hit, this article. HangingCurveSwing for the fence 23:59, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 02:10, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 02:11, 24 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Strong Delete. There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that indicates that this concept is notable. Wikipedia is not for promotion, and this is quite blatant promotion (as admitted by the author). That's most of why I deleted it as a G11 the first time around. UltraExactZZ Said~ Did 02:27, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete, hoax, invented. Hairhorn (talk) 03:42, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Snowball delete Delete . I don't understand why we need an AfD discussion before we can delete such such patently obvious OR that exemplifies what Wikipedia is not for and doesn't stand a snowball's chance to survive. --Lambiam 12:10, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure either. Had I not deleted it the first time, I surely would've the second. But it is what it is. UltraExactZZ Said~ Did 13:57, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Then maybe you can consider voting for Snowball delete? ZZArch talk to me 20:57, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
 * OK, so !voted. --Lambiam 21:54, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete per above. -- Joaquin008 ( talk ) 17:31, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete Looks like original research. Cardamon (talk) 06:49, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Snowball Delete Poorly written original research, no reliable sources, no evidence of notability whatsoever. What about us atheists? --Ritchie333 (talk)  11:16, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Snowball Delete - This article is nothing but OR and it is certainly not notable. -- Bobby122  Contact Me   (C)  03:24, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Snowball Delete per above. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 20:55, 30 January 2012 (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.