Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scientific spirituality


 * 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. Rjd0060 (talk) 14:35, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Scientific spirituality

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Non notable with no reliable sources and lots of original research. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 01:11, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions.   —Ism schism (talk) 01:13, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete as a barely coherent personal essay in violation of WP:NOT point #3. The article contains this sentence which, on top of the WP:NPOV issue is invokes, looks to be its thesis "The union of science and spirituality is destined and must happen."  The only directly referenced statements are quotes taken from other works, and the rest of the work is tangential argument in support of a point of view.  &hArr; &int;Æ S   dt  @ 01:40, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * keep HOLD ON lets give it a chance its promising.Myheartinchile (talk) 04:20, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong delete per Aubrey as article is OR. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 04:24, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete It may have potential, but that's if it was a legitimate topic. Also, as said above, "WP:NOT point #3". The article is just a biased essay. Leonard( Bloom ) 04:32, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong delete, per WP:NOT. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 14:28, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete, original research, personal essay. J I P  | Talk 19:04, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete. That's not even an article; it is an essay. BecauseWhy? (talk) 02:30, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete The article has a very inappropriate essay tone that is largely based on opinion. Sentences such as "We cannot believe life without it..." clearly indicate that this article is original research. —  Wen li  (reply here) 05:51, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. The interface between science and spirituality is undoubtedly of immense importance, and I'd say that it most certainly deserves an article of its own. What we have here, however, is not that article, but rather an essay that might as well have begun with, "Hi, I'm a WP:OR violation." Cosmic Latte (talk) 18:04, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong delete, per my comment (along with Shirahadasha's) below. There is already a Wikipedia article on this subject. We don't need a WP:OR-violating essay on it for good measure. Cosmic Latte (talk) 16:25, 30 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete Agree this article is essentially an essay advocating a view. There are currently a number of more neutrally toned and reliably sourced articles on subjects related to the Relationship between religion and science --Shirahadasha (talk) 23:06, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: Oh, so the science-spirituality interface does already have a decent article of its own. Excellent. Well, then I don't see the need to "hold on" to this one whatsoever. Cosmic Latte (talk) 13:50, 30 June 2008 (UTC)


 * keep HOLD ON The article is can be changed to remove any violations —Preceding unsigned comment added by Myheart24 (talk • contribs) 22:04, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Note This vote by a new editor is their ONLY edit done on wikipedia. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 22:14, 2 July 2008 (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.