Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Path of the True Heart


 * 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. Spartaz Humbug! 17:10, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

The Path of the True Heart

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Does not appear to meet WP:NOTABILITY. IusticiaBY (talk) 16:28, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. IusticiaBY (talk) 16:28, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
 * The original location The Path of the True Heart as well as the categories Category:Characteristics of Nature, Category:Universal Values and Category:Personal Experience, which were especially created for this article should also be deleted. --Mps (talk) 19:19, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:45, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

- please note (again) contribution in Wikipedia rules over relevance, thanks

- please note too, in the English edition of Wikipedia we don't appreciate the relevance deletion inquisition going on in the German version, this hurts and demotivates many, many people and was never intended by the founders of Wikipedia, it compromises both valuable volunteering and evolution of content

- deletion of any article, demonstrating accurateness and positive (thus non violating) content-contribution is not acceptable, Lila has outlined that we want to go back to the positive and kind roots of Wikipedia

- If articles won't be read a single time for ten or twenty years no one will complain then if these articles will be archived (a.k.a natural selection) but the pursue of rational breeding is against the heart / DNA of Wikipedia thanks--Marlaterra (talk) 23:49, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

requesting withdrawal of AfD nomination and close of discussion as elaborated above; precious time of volunteering for Wikipedia is to be focused on creating and improving informative, useful content not deleting valuable contributions thanks--Marlaterra (talk) 12:32, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete. There's no claim of encyclopedic relevance here and no independent sources. --Michig (talk) 06:31, 20 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep as elaborated above--Marlaterra (talk) 16:25, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete as WP:OR. I would suggest the author consider Wikisource or Wikia.  --j⚛e deckertalk 18:27, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete I can't see where this has gained any coverage in reliable sources that would show that this is notable. I see plenty of WP:PRIMARY sources, but not any that are independent and in reliable places. As far as the speech above goes, Wikipedia was never intended to be a repository about every subject under the sun and by that I mean that the original founders always had the intent to exclude various topics. Initially they figured that this would be done under the context of common sense: a page about a successful Japanese manga would be included, while a page about a recently launched webcomic would not. Over time they (and other Wikipedia editors) realized that people were taking advantage of this in order to promote things, try to add wildly non-notable things to Wikipedia, etc, so they tightened the rules and made it harder for the non-notable things to remain on Wikipedia. I can actually point to one of the AfDs that made Wikipedia more strict about notability for books/written materials. (Articles for deletion/America Deceived) In other words, again- Wikipedia was always intended to be exclusive rather than all inclusive. It's highly, highly unlikely that we will ever return to the pre-rules period of Wikipedia. You're welcome to try to argue your point at some of the various avenues (WP:NBOOK, WP:GNG, for example) but I would say that your chances of overturning years of rules is pretty much nil. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   04:40, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

go ahead and remove it, I'm not interested in an endless deletion debate, the decreasing number of contributors is the answer to the relevance/notability breeding. Happy breeding --Marlaterra (talk) 14:05, 22 September 2014 (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.